Disgusting Operating Practices
Bill Crowell (N6AYJ)
on
March 8, 2006
View comments about this article!
I was listening to 3840 last night here on the West coast and I couldn't believe what I was hearing: Ranting, raving, jamming, music, cussing, etc., etc. for hours on end. Totally out of control!
It made me ashamed to be an amateur. There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of thing. All of those hams should have their licenses revoked! And what about all those bootleggers? Why doesn't the Commission do something about them?
It is really sickening, and I am having serious reservations about whether I want to continue to be a ham or not. Why doesn't Riley Hollingsworth do something about it, rather than making speeches and mouthing platitudes?
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KN4LF on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I feel the same way OM and at one point started selling off all of my equipment. Then I decided that I would not let the ever increasing number of LIDS to run me off.
If you want to avoid CB mentality type LIDS 99.9% of the time work the digital modes only. Ops on the digital mdes are so nice that it has reinvigorated my interest in ham radio.
--... ...--,
Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
Retired Space Plasma Physicist
Lakeland, FL, USA
Grid Square EL97AW
kn4lf@arrl.net
KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com
KN4LF 160 Meter Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8AG on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When the FCC concentrates on censorship more than enforcement, we all suffer.
My 2 cents.
73, JP, K8AG
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W2NSF on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Bill, Don't depend on the FCC to police our bands. Copy down the callsigns, dates, times, frequencies, and descriptions of offenses and forward the information to the appropriate place. We're a self-policing hobby. Get involved. Please. Thank you. Jim
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by NE0P on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is absolutely nothing wrong with ranting and raving on the air. Neither is prohibited by Part 97 in the FCC rules. Now music, jamming, and cussing is another story...
73s John NE0P
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by AA4PB on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First, you picked the wrong band to monitor. 75M seems to be a hang out for those who participate in such activities. Actually Riley has done a pretty good job of trying to clean up the bands. The problem is that he doesn't have the people or the budget to do random monitoring all around the country. I would suggest that you make some recordings and document what you hear and make a complaint to the FCC. If enough people do that then Riley will probably focus his attention in that direction for a while.
Last year at Dayton I took my grand daughter. I couldn't monitor the 2M talk-in because of the filth on the frequency by those who were harrassing the talk-in operators. Ham radio has really picked up some low-lifes!
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA4CUA on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I suggest the best way to lick'em is to join'em.
At a break in the conversation (you may only have a few milliseconds) key your mike and say your call sign "N6AYJ". If you are not recognized try a few more times later on. If some one says "N6AYJ, go ahead" then you're in like Flint. Join their conversation, introduce yourself, offer something constructive, let them get comfortable, and at the proper time introduce your feelings about the conversations you have heard. You might just make a difference.
You have the power...it's in your finals <g> and if you're born again you have even more.
73 & good luck.
John Helms
WA4CUA
|
| |
|
I agree, Bill, but maybe I will ask for the help
|
|
|
by KZ1X on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Riley might still be mad at you:
http://www.ki6ky.com/ayj.htm
|
| |
|
RE: I agree, Bill, but maybe I will ask for the he
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"So whatever happened to the concept of hams being "self-policing", anyway?"
...So why not take your own advice there, "Princess."
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W9SZ on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
That's why I don't waste my time on 75 meter SSB.
I have heard a little of this on 40m and 20m SSB but for some reason never hear it on any other band/modes.
You are NOT likely to hear much (if any) of that sort of activity on any of the HF digital modes, VHF+ weak-signal operations (CW, SSB, digital) and far less on CW.
So if you're REALLY bothered by it, go somewhere where it doesn't exist, as above.
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Since the days of the old wild west,
"What we have here is a failure to c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-e" !!!!
--... ...--
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N6AYJ on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W2NSF wrote:
"Bill, Don't depend on the FCC to police our bands. Copy down the callsigns, dates, times, frequencies, and descriptions of offenses and forward the information to the appropriate place. We're a self-policing hobby. Get involved. Please. Thank you. Jim"
Jim, I respectfully disagree. Title 47 of the U.S. Code, Section 154, paragraph (B), provides that such evidence must be provided by either a Commission employee or an OO. The Commission can't use evidence collected by us ordinary mortals.
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K0RGR on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No, you have every right to collect the information and forward it to FCC. They will treat it as they do any citizen report - it's unsubstantiated, but none-the-less a complaint. The Commission has requested such input many times. They will have to take actions to corroborate it, but this input is not ignored if they can do anything about it.
Things must be bad on the West Coast. I haven't heard anything terrible on 75 here in the Midwest lately, and the conditions have been pretty fabulous. There are quite a few guys who need to learn to either put down the bottle or hide the microphone, and a few are well acquainted with old Al Alzheimer, too. But a good friend of mine a few years ago got real excited about becoming a ham, and bought an HF receiver so he sould listen in. After one night of listening to 75, he decided not to bother, because he'd never be able to get on the air when his grandkids were around.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by AA4PB on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Commission can't use evidence collected by us ordinary mortals.
-------------------------------------------------
No, but they can use it to see that there is a problem and begin an investigation of their own. However, after reading your letter to Riley I think I'd lay low if I were you.
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K7NG on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I try to avoid the frequencies that are primarily occupied by the potty-mouths, try not to get mad when some clown says "You're F***** right it is" when I politely ask "Is this frequency in use?" on a freq where nothing has been heard for a few minutes, and try to keep myself from degenerating to the same level...and don't work phone very much. It's the best I can do. I have better things to do with my limited time on the air than let these unhappy and emotionally-challenged idiots spoil it. Hey, I had some jackass jam me for a half hour because I worked a DX station before he did. Are these people any worse than the dozens of people who continually send "UP UP UP LID" right over the top of a CW DX station or do the equivalent on phone, or those who hassle young people who are getting their first taste of HF just because they are kids? Ham Radio unfortunately is a hobby that collects some unfortunates because they can do all this garbage anonymously and with little fear of retribution. If you know someone who does this, please do all the rest of us a favor, make a recording or something, and get the particulars to the FCC. They WILL act if they think the complaint has some validity (and there is more than one about any given idiot).
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by GOODBUDDY on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Boy if this isn't the "Pot calling the kettle black".
Bill your operating practices on 75M are probably the worst of all the amateurs that I've heard (except for possibly ex-K1MAN). Good troll.
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WF7A on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N6AYJ wrote:
"Jim, I respectfully disagree. Title 47 of the U.S. Code, Section 154, paragraph (B), provides that such evidence must be provided by either a Commission employee or an OO. The Commission can't use evidence collected by us ordinary mortals."
If that's the case, how difficult would it be to become an Official Observer (OO)? It occurs to me that if it's relatively easy to become one, then we'd have more power to take the lids to task.
Cheers,
Rich
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N6AYJ on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K0RGR wrote: "No, you have every right to collect the information and forward it to FCC. They will treat it as they do any citizen report - it's unsubstantiated, but none-the-less a complaint. The Commission has requested such input many times."
Sure, you can collect information and forward it to the FCC to your heart's content, but it only amounts to an act of onanism. The evidence will not be admissible in any FCC proceedings. The Commission would have to ask an OO or one of its staff to listen on the frequency at some later time, when the violator is not likely to be there anyway. BTW, in my earlier post I should have said 47 USC Sec. 154(f)(4)(G).
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KG6WLS on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I hear it too. But, there is also this big heavy, round, cylinder device on the radio, with a dimple in it that makes the frequecny go UP or DOWN. Try that and see if that works.
--... ...--
-.. .
-.- --. -.... .-- .-.. ...
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KB9CRY on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why would anyone want to listen up at 3840 Mhz?
The DX that you want is down between 3790 - 3800 or lower on CW.
There's nothing up any higher and that's what the poster found, just a bunch of nothing.
Don't go there, don't waste your time.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K3AN on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ham bands in their entirety are like a city, where you know (or quickly learn) to avoid certain neighborhoods. Since the ham population is a subset of the general population, proportionally there's going to be pretty much the same amount of trash.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
pot·ty mo.uth 1 (pŏt'ç mouTHz),ham radio 75m band.,
adj. -pot·er, -mo.uthi·est.
The opening in the body through which a spewing receptacle exhibits philippic (fĭ-lĭp'ĭk) facial contortions in a loud, pompous speech like manner; boisterous; of little significance or importance in society; trivial individual.
Others;
Slightly intoxicated; addlebrained ;grandiloquent ;perorate.
[Possibly from POT1.]
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by NN6EE on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hiya Billy!!!
Say! If you abhor rotten operating practices try listening on 3.815 to around 3.810mhz. when a select few get looped (primarily a gentleman in SACTO.)and are the foulest mouthed individuals to inhabit the bands, but yet "Hollywood" does'nt seem to give a damn!!!
WHY IS THAT???
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I noticed this exact same type of operating practice during the last DX contest. The only things missing were the cussing and music but the other trash was just as bad if not worse.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by NN6EE on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE4ZHN,
If you were referring to the "ARRL DX Phone-bash" you're absolutley correct! Though as a side-note I'd say that the vast majority of we DXers would'nt sink to the level that a few of our other "brethren" did to ruin it or try to for everyone else.
But don't you think that the BEHAVIOR of serious CW Ops is far more mature on the whole???
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by SWANMAN on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
And to think that folks had to pass a Morse Code test for this.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W5GNB on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Maybe this is why I stay on the 440-repeaters more lately, If some LID starts acting up we simply TONE him OFF and he can sing solo for a while!!
I have also heard many JERKS on CW on the EXTRA bands calling each other LIDS, etc. The practice is not simply restricted to 75-meters, it is even worse on 20-meters and perhaps other bands.
That is what you get when you invite lesser qualified "Operators" into the hobby.
THANKS ARRL for your help in dumming down the requirements and helping turn the hobby into a high power DX CB band!!
73's
GARY - W5GNB
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KT8K on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Didn't someone (Riley Hollingsworth himself?) suggest that course in the past? ... That anyone who could document illegal operation should do so and submit it to Riley & company?
Personally, I operate 90%+ CW - no problem with the bozos there - the real trolls on 75m probably don't remember much of the code anyway ... (no .. don't call for a retest ... well ... maybe for the offenders <grin>)
Good rx & 73 de kt8k - Tim
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by NT7S on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
How does this crap make it to article status? An obvious troll from the biggest offender that I have ever heard on 75 m. Does no one bother to do even a little checking on these articles?
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K3ASA on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think the 80 Meter band is a haven for old men who either have NO life, or its a kind of drunken stupor area. I hear these redneck types here discussing their hound dog who "hung the neighbors fancy poodle this morning", or why his wife could out fart him after a bout of pickled eggs and beer, etc.. Totally and completely disgusting. Callsigns are seldom heard, they just talk as if they are sitting around the potbelly stove in the country store. IF they are as uneducated and dumb as they sound, I doubt if the total group could add up to an IQ of 80... If I had heard this garbage prior to becoming licensed, I seriously doubt if I would have wasted my time and $$! And dont suggest moving to another band, because this is wrong, and RUNNING AWAY from the problem will not cure it. I am reporting these guys til I am blue in the face. Sooner or later, something WILL get done. 73, de K3ASA Gene
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KE6IRP on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If you think it's bad now-- wait a few years till after the arrl and the FCC complete the droping of the code test-- it will be lid o rama on all bands-- standby OM...
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K1OU on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
75 is a lot of fun if not taken too seriously. The guys sitting around a stove aura mentioned earlier is part of the charm of the band. Agreed, there is a lot of questionable behavior. I have had my fun on the band, some of which would upset Messrs. Dobson, Wildmon, and Robertson, but I have also gained valuable knowledge about many aspects of the hobby. Like how to quirm effectively. Just kidding.
Receivers aren't crystal controlled, so slide the VFO once in awhile and remember that it is just a hobby.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N5XM on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you look at the FCC attorneys, they are just like any attorneys in that they do their best only to take the cases they think they have a very good chance to win. If you look at the Garritson case that is soon to be in the sentencing phase, the evidence was documented and from many sources. It still has taken a couple of years to get to this point, and the case was a slam dunk from square one. Slam dunk or not, it's been very expensive. Things must be documented properly, and the evidence must come from multiple sources. Word of mouth doesn't feed the bulldog. You need tapes of the done deed.
This stuff doesn't bother me as much as it used to except for the fact that it is a terrible advertisement for potential Hams and children. I just use the big knob and go somewhere else. I'm another of those antiquated CW ops, and bad behaviour on the CW sub-bands is really rare. There are jerks everywhere, however, and they ain't goin' away. If you want to use the system to best effect, contact your Section Manager, or go to your state's webpage and find the e-mail and phone number of the Official Observer Coordinator and talk to them. Your can get e-mail addy's and phone numbers for area OOs, and your taped documentation can go to them. You will want to include paper records with dates and times and callsigns. I'm sorry it seems like so much work, but if you intend on using the system, you have to play by their rules. Good luck.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K6JEB on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well I wonder if you can get George W. Bush impeached since he's made more of a mess than his predecessor did with a Blue Dress.
Hmmm, that rhymes.
I will definitely agree with you that the QRM on 3840 is a shame. But that's just a tiny part of our allotted frequencies. Although I operate mostly CW, I do pop up to the phone section of the band now and then to see what's happening.
One thing I think is surprising is it's not the newcomers who are the biggest violators. Some of these transmissions match the same voice-print I've heard connected to callsigns that have been around for a while. So I guess we can't blame the no-code folks for that.
I know that a combination of OO's, direction finding gear, and just patience will yield some FCC action. Believe me, several of us are already on the case.
But hey, I'm still wondering who you're blaming now that 'your side' has been in control of the administration and FCC for over six years now. I guess it's Al Qaeda now since taht's just a buzzword for 'liberals.'
:)
Just keep in mind that we're all friends, some of us just don't know it yet.
73 and GET ON CW!
Jack, K6JEB
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by NN6EE on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N5XM,
Here in EBay section we don't HAVE A OOC, because our earlier one was a PROBLEM NOT A SOLUTION and had his ASS fired as a lot of other OOs had been as well!!!
It's obvious that to be a candidate nowadays for becoming a OO or OOC that you have a "PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE" done so that later on the ARRL and the FCC are'nt held accountable for their rush to destory other's reputations who were innocent TO BEGIN WITH!!!
JIM/ee
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N0AH on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From what I understand, special ops from the FCC are on thise right now- I've have also heard certain hams along this bandwidth are marked for, well, you know-
You sound like my step-mother....just turn the dial big baby. Maybe some hams out there find your QSO's disgusting gooo.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W9ZXT on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another gentleman said earilier, wait until the FCC does away with the CW requirement for testing. I believe he is right. It's easy to get a license now. It is going to get easier. Then what do you think you will hear on the air? Maybe I am wrong, but what I hear on the air pretty much says it all. Twist the VFO around, you are nuts if you think it is limited to just 75 Meters. Face it guys, you take away testing requirements in the form of published question/answer pools and drop strict CW requirements to upgrade, and this is what you are going to get. The FCC is giving the license away. You want them to police the bands? They are the ones that are giving the license away. I'm not getting out of Ham Radio Yet but I am selling all of my gear except one Rig and my CW keys. Anyone interested in some mint Kenwood rigs, Drake Amps, Heathkit Amps, Drake Tuners, and addtional misc Ham gear, my E-mail is on QRZ. God Bless!!
Nick
W9ZXT
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N4VOX on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Lids!!! 80 meters has been a joke in many parts of the nation for 20 years. Most of the worst offenders are either advanced or extra class hams.
|
| |
|
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
|
|
|
by K6JEB on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bill, I was OK with this post you made, despite some of the details that seem to be, as usual, fingering people who haven't been hams since Marconi's day. But hey, we all have a right to our opinions. And at least here on the Internet, we can voice them. Someone posted a letter you wrote to the FCC, and at first I was reading it for the entertainment value, and I even included a small snark in my first reply to your post (prodding you about how you managed to have Bill Clinton impeached because you were audited by the IRS; urging you to try the same with George W Bush since things have become, how shall we say, DIFFERENT in the world).
But I swear this following statement took any respect I have for you as a person, and dashed it against the rocks. You wrote to the FCC in 2000, among other things:
"The only problem is, if you force me to put on a lot of evidence about how boring and underutilized 75 meters is, it is going to redound to the injury of the amateur radio service because I will make sure that other radio services hear about it, and they will jump on that testimony as a means of bolstering their arguments that they should have the frequencies instead. If you take me to an administrative hearing, I am going to contact representatives of the other radio services and invite them to attend the proceedings so they can see how you've screwed up the amateur radio service, because at this point I'm starting to think that they really do deserve the frequencies more than hams do, and your mismanagement of the amateur service is something they should know about in making their arguments for frequency
re-allocation. So any further enforcement action that you may take against me in this matter is really going to hurt ham radio, and if it does, you have only yourself to blame."
In other words, you would take down ham radio as a whole if you were to be taken to task with alleged violations of part 97 of the FCC rules? Is this how you play? "If I can't be quarterback I'm going to take the ball home."
OK, like I said, I agree that there is much to be investigated on 3840.
I also understand that your letter to the FCC was in 2000, and hey, people change, times change, we all change.
But knowing you are someone who would make such a threat to a public official, and to the hobby that is ham radio as a whole, irks the hell out of me. I would very much appreciate a response to this, hopefully just between you and I. You can email me at my callsign @ arrl.net
Our hobby isn't perfect. And yeah, it's just a hobby.
But if we're going to launch complaints about behavior on 3840, then it will need to come from someone who seems to have more love of the hobby than you Bill. And it will have to come from someone who doesn't just make threats with little thought to how this might be read by others.
Nonetheless, I really hope one day we can all laugh about this and enjoy this hobby without worrying about the lids.
Finally, sometimes I entertain the idea of having rules in place where we have to take the exam every few years. I think many wouldn't pass even the supposedly "easy" multiple choice exams they have.
But hey, I also feel they should make all of us take behind-the-wheel exams every couple years to make sure people can still drive safely. WOuld the same logic apply there? That the driving exam has become too much of a 'gimme' and that's why there are so many sh*tty drivers on the roads?
No, I think Ken Kesey was right: "There will always be more dumb people than smart people. It's a statistical fact."
Let's document what we hear on 3840 and elsewhere, and DO something about it rather than just whine. And PLEASE Bill, I understand your concern, but let someone who hasn't burned their bridges with the FCC make the formal complaint. :)
Good DX to all. Vy 73,
Jack
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Channel 3840" has been a redneck cluster for as long as I've been listening - so that's at least 35 years.
As another has said, "Channel 3840" is just a small tidbit of our spectrum, so you either report or abort and move on.
Funny how people find the most ridiculous things to b**ch about - even though they may be as much as fault as the ones theyre crabbing about.
The way some people act on the radio reminds me of the way some people drive - have to be first, gotta be stubborn and not let the next guy get the one up on you.
BTW, if 75 is so bad, what do we do about all the crabby a**es on here, call the "Internet Police"???
-.. --- -. - -... . -.-. .-. .- -... -... -.--
-... . .... -. .--. .--. -.--
73, WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W8JI on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
DIAMOND SPRINGS, CA: The FCC wrote Advanced licensee William F. Crowell, N6AYJ, on August 21, 2000, citing monitoring information before the Commission alleging that the licensee may have engaged in deliberate interference to other amateur operations on 75 meters over the last several months. "This interference consists of unsolicited and unwanted comments and responses to the ongoing communications," wrote FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth. "Such communications have occurred even though your transmissions were not acknowledged and in some cases even after you were requested to refrain from doing so." Hollingsworth noted that he'd spoken with Crowell earlier this year regarding this matter and that Crowell had told him problems with the other operators had been resolved and that Crowell assured him he "would stop such attempts at forcing communications with the other stations." Hollingsworth said such conduct "degrades the Amateur Radio Service for legitimate communications, is contrary to §97.1 and is considered deliberate interference." He requested that Crowell reply within 20 days stating "what actions you are taking to eliminate this type of interference."
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KG6WLS on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
-.. --- -. - -... . -.-. .-. .- -... -... -.--
-... . .... -. .--. .--. -.--
Happy happy, Joy joy! =)
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by VE3ECMW2 on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oy Vey!
How does someone with the biggest case of megalomania I've ever seen (read this to get an idea of this kook's character: http://www.ki6ky.com/ayj.htm) get an article posted on the front page of eham?
You are the real shame to ham radio, sir.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N0XMZ on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just curious - are old hams the only ones who still use the 1960's slang term "LID"? I never hear anyone use this word except hams. Every time I see or hear the word, I get flashbacks of "Leave it to Beaver" episodes. Groovy.
I think what we have here is a lesson in human nature. Not everyone can be a gentleman.
And isn't this problem of bad language on the air about as old as the vacuum tube? There are plenty of Extras and Advanced class hams (if not the majority) getting citations for jamming and other misbehavior on the bands. And yet, all these "lids" learned Morse code. Yep that "filter" really works!
n0xmz
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W3LK on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another "article" that eHam should have deleted when it was submitted. What a monumental waste of server disk space.
73,
Lon - W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N6AYJ on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!! You took the bait! Gourd, you guys are just too danged easy to prank! Listen, if you want to see a good website, check mine out at:
http://pageproducer.innercite.com/bcrowell4/index.html
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N6AYJ:
I am most proud of the following accomplishments in ham radio...
1.) Receiving two Warning Notices from Riley Hollingsworth (he never pursued them, because he simply practices "trial by press release"); 2.) being banned from QRZ.COM.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by NS6Y_ on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Looks like the pig farmers have discovered Eham's forums. Whee.
CW and digital are the way to go folks, the pig-pokers can't operate a CW key with delirium tremens and keyboards for PSK don't work when they're full of Coke and porkrinds.
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W6PWJ on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
All e-ham.net members... Watch out for this Bill Comwell, N6AYJ scam..... He's still reacting to the FCC-Hollingsworth, Notice Of Violation and Warning Letter he, N6AYJ, received. Read his rambing response to his FCC-Hollingsworth Notice Of Violation. See >> http://www.ki6ky.com/ayj.htm
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KK7UE on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I tried the ki6ky link; got an error 404 or something when I googled it. Oh well, such is life. As in life, ham radio or on the internet, there will always be a segment of the populace destined for the dark side. There are plenty of cool-aid drinkers on both sides of the fence to go around. To get excited about it to the point of anurism is futile at best. Its all indicative of what 45+ years of creeping liberalism has wrought upon the collective as a whole. If you hear something so offensive as to cause your panties to get in a wad, do us all a favor and tune it up or down. The powers that be will 'enforce' what they want on a whim and nothing more. I dont let it get me down; I just find something else to listen to. Might I suggest you do also. Works for me.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KD4AC on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"That is what you get when you invite lesser qualified 'Operators' into the hobby."
LOL!!! Another person who thinks that CW is what makes a person a HAM. Most of the biggest offenders are HAMs who took 13 wpm or greater code tests. But you knew that already, didn't you?
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K4EAT on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you don't like it -- then spin off
I read the 40000 word poorly written statement at http://www.ki6ky.com/ayj.htm and now I see why folks hate hams -- holy crap -- what a long winded whiner...
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K4IA on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There's a lot of disgusting garbage on TV too - even over the air TV (ABC may be the worst offender). Much of it is a lot worse than a few guys around the pot-bellied stove on 75. Fart jokes, racial stereotyping, sex, drugs, deviant behavior and gratuitous violence are all over TV. It is in your face very day and your kids and grandkids are watching.
Spin the dial and leave the 75 meter boys alone. They're enjoying themselves and hurting no one.
The bad operating practices that really matter are malicious interference, SSB stations that stomp all over the QRP windows on 40M, calling the DX on his frequency or ignoring his instructions, and FT1000xx key clicks.
Now, that's disgusting!
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W8JII on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Unfortunately at times many amateur radio operators can be likened to granola.---------------What aint fruits and nuts are flakes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KR4OW on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K7NG Wrote
challenged idiots spoil it. Hey, I had some jackass jam me for a half hour because I worked a DX station before he did. Are these people any worse than the dozens of people who continually send "UP UP UP LID"
Most of the people that have to be told UP UP Lid are lids they don't listen before they transmit.
And don't tell me you have not heard that yourself.
And If you have you know how frustrating it is to listen to them doing that especially if they are weak on your recieving end. And also the people that know that dx is there and they get on the frequency spite that and call cq....
73'S
David KR4OW
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by AH6FC on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don't throw the towel in yet, but we sure have a problem.
73's
Bill
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KA5OIR on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Morning Jim,
A valid point you made there. We have to be the ones to keep our airwaves clean. Those that complain that the FCC aren't doing enough to police the airwaves are the ones that will complain when the FCC does starting doing so. We have to be the controlling factor in all of this, and so again, you made a valid point and we appreciate you sharing it with us.
Aubrey
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KB1GMX on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Funny thing this is common.
I have a local ham that is an 'Avid Kerchunker' of
repeaters. No ID just 4-10 kerchunks in a row. Would
only be the repeater owners problem save for when he
does this he's also doing worked all consumer electronics
in the neighborhood. Oh, he's no tech either, over 40
years a ham.
Somedays you just can't win.
Allison
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K2CBM on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I work only CW just for this reason. CW is not pure either, however. Just tune in to a pileup on a DX station and listen to all the deliberate jamming and tuning up on his signal.
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by TODD5251 on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well,as a person studying to get into this hobby,I must say this sounds like something I can get on 11 meters. Please tell me all the hard work I am doing is worth it.
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K9MI on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This has been going on forever. And I doubt it will go away in our life times. Turn the dial, or turn the rig off and go watch tv.
K9MI
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KB6REY on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
" It is really sickening, and I am having serious reservations
about whether I want to continue to be a ham or not. "
Then QUIT!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1110 Pleasant Valley Road
Diamond Springs, California 95619
(530) 622-3386
23:22:20
W. Riley Hollingsworth, K4ZDH
Special Counsel, Enforcement Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
Gettysburg, PA 17325-7245
Re: Response to your August 21, 2000 Warning Notice concerning
Amateur Radio Station N6AYJ
Dear Mr. Hollingsworth:
Please allow this letter to serve as my written response to your August 21, 2000 Warning Notice concerning my amateur radio operations on 3820, 3830 and 3857 khz. Kindly also let it confirm that I did speak to you by telephone on August 28, 2000 but that we could not agree in that conversation about how to resolve the Warning Notice, so we agreed that I would file this written response.
Your said Warning Notice is hereby both factually and legally challenged.
Before I begin outlining the factual and legal deficiencies of your Warning Notice, let me mention a couple of preliminary matters. First, since we are both apparently pretty hard-core hams, and hams are supposed to be friendly, I am going to write this letter on a first-name basis, and you may hereafter use my first name ("Bill") in both written and oral communications with me, if you desire. The second thing is that I feel your Warning Notice is a really lousy way to treat a taxpayer! I mean, jeez, Riley, I'm paying your salary! I pay a whole bunch of money in taxes, and it doesn't come easily! I can't really support my family the way I would like to be able to do, due to my large federal tax load, and for some reason none of your buddy Al Gore's proposed "targeted tax cuts" are targeted at me. So this Warning Notice is the thanks I get for all the taxes I pay? Riley, I must advise you that you guys in the Enforcement Bureau are really starting to look like a bunch of ingrates to me at this point!
Here's the thing, Riley: I'm a trendsetter, and a lot of people listen to my opinions. Also, my wife and kids tend to be trendsetters, too. For example, my son Ben (KB6ZD) is a college professor. (He never gets on the ham radio anymore because he thinks it's too dumb, and I'm really beginning to agree with him, after receiving your Warning Notice!) The real question is, do you want people like us to be friends or enemies of your agency, and of the federal government? Riley, your warning notice was really a dumb move, politically! It ranks right up there with the time that Bill Clinton had me audited by the IRS after I told him he should resign over his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Sure, the govern-ment made me pay some more taxes in a very unfair fashion, but at what price to public loyalty? Do you know how many people I educated about how to resist the IRS after that? Do you know how many college students heard the story from my son, and now will probably distrust the government forever as a result? Is that what you're trying to accomplish here? Did you know that two California congressmen voted in favor of impeachment, largely because I proved to them that Clinton had me audited in retaliation for urging him to resign? Doesn't the federal government have enough problems about its credibility with the public without your taking such a stupid action? So why are you doing things like this, Riley? In other words, do you want the public to be loyal to the federal government, or not? You're acting exactly like you are trying to breed disloyal citizens or something! So knock it off already!
Riley, you may remember our previous e-mail exchange, wherein I warned you about becoming "Mr. Enforcement" and doing the bidding of the ham radio "brownshirts", but apparently you have ignored my correspondence because that is exactly what you're doing with my Warning Notice! And now I see that the Com-mis-sion is still up to its old tricks: lying about the facts, and trying to claim it has enforcement powers it does not have, because you want to be able to demonstrate "instant action" to the brownshirts, and find it too hard and time-consuming to do your job properly and in a legal fashion, and you find it too difficult to explain to the brownshirts why you can't just summarily run anybody they disagree with off the air. I'm rather disappointed in you, Riley, because I really thought you were too sophisticated, and too familiar with my previous dealings with your agency, to try to pull that kind of shit. Riley, hasn't anybody in your office told you that Billy Crowell is no pushover? I think you should pull my file and read about my prior encounters with the Commission. I won them all! Every single one! I'll tell you about them later in this Response, by way of explaining why I have my rather jaundiced view of the Commission's amateur enforcement efforts over the years.
And now I see from your curriculum vitae that you are a big buddy of Al Gore, and I'm really beginning to wonder about you, Riley! In order for you to understand a little better where I am coming from, I guess I should tell you that about the most upsetting experience I've had in years was when I had to explain to my (then) 8-year-old daughter what oral sex was because we couldn't avoid Bill and Monica on TV. I really would have liked to have waited until she was older before I had to tell her what it meant, you know? Now, can I blame anybody but Bill Clinton and your Democratic buddies for that? Check yourself out, my man! You're hanging out with the wrong crowd! Those Democrats will lie and say anything they need to say to get elected, and it's just a question of whether or not they can get enough stupid people to believe them in order to get elected! I mean, if the politics of your position is driving you crazy, and that's the reason you're acting so erratically and making so many mistakes in your enforce-ment actions, you could always get a job in private industry and get your head on straight. I've had many friends who formerly worked for the Commission and got out when the political bullshit got too heavy, and they're much happier now. And when you sink to issuing warning notices to good operators like me, then you are really just advertising the fact that you are probably just a miserable person, who's jealous of me because I'm having more fun on the ham radio than you are! So if you decide to remain in your position despite your apparent misery, then I conclude that it is self-imposed misery and I really resent your trying to bring me down to your miserable level, too, by sending me your Warning Notice!
Well, anyway, before I address your allegations, please let me tell you a bit about my ham radio history. I got my license as a Novice in 1960 when I was 13. My friend's 6th grade teacher (Lee Grabowski, ex-K6UJR, SK 1984) was my Elmer, and he was working all kinds of amazing DX on 10-meter AM with a plumber's-delight beam during the 1958 sunspot cycle. At that point, I was hooked on ham radio forever, or so I thought until I received your Warning Notice! My Elmer administered the Novice exam and I got the call WV6LSF. I worked a lot of CW with a DX-20 and an SX-25. I was really lucky because I had a couple of teachers who were hams and they would let me get away without doing my homework if I swore I was working CW instead, which I always was. Therefore, within a fairly short time I passed my General and became WA6LSF. I took my General exam in San Francisco from Engineer-In-Charge Landry in 1961, and during the code test, especially the sending test, I was scared as hell because he was such an imposing old curmudgeon, and I was only 14 at the time. After my code test, when Mr. Landry told me I'd passed, he added that I had a good fist! I think that was one of the proudest moments of my life and, I'm sure
partly as a result, I still like CW and fancy myself a fairly decent CW operator. (Some years ago I earned a Code Proficiency certificate endorsed at 45 wpm by the ARRL, and I think my code speed is still up there pretty good.) I took my Advanced Class exam from my good friend, Engineer-In-Charge Marti-Volkoff in San Francisco, in 1976 or so. (Although, in saying he's "my good friend", I realize I haven't heard from him in a long time, so perhaps he'd consider me only an acquaintance. Do you know if he is still in good health, by the way? He tried
to do a good job on ham enforce-ment when he was Engineer-In-Charge, and he was quite fair and gutsy.) I've tried to pass my Extra exam a couple of times, but I'm one of these old-fashioned people who actually wants to learn all that Extra theory rather than just memorizing the answers from the question pool. The only problem is that maybe I'm just not smart enough to learn all that theory. In any event, I never had any problem passing the (former) 20-wpm Extra code test, but I failed the Extra theory element by about one question or so, and I just never got around to taking the Extra exam again after that, so I guess I'm just going to have to be satisfied with being an Advanced Class licensee forever.
During my 40-year ham radio career, I've built just about every kind of ham equip-ment there is, from breadboard regenerative receivers to rack-mounted high-power RF amplifiers, so I feel I am fairly-well qualified, technically, to be a ham. I have also provided a lot of benefit to the ham community during the entire 40 years of my licensure. Here are three examples of my service to the amateur community:
1. In the late '70's, and rather single-handedly, I would add, I revived the largely-moribund Oakland (California) Radio Club, was elected its President, and coordinated its re-entry into the field of disaster communications (from which it had been totally absent for a number of years) by working closely with the Red Cross and RACES so that Oakland would have the amateur disaster com-mun-ica-tions system which it was then lacking.
2. In the early '80's, by petitioning the (former) Private Radio Bureau for relief, I was instrumental in forcing the highly-corrupt Grizzly Peak (Oakland), California VHF Amateur Radio Club to cease its jamming with code practice, which it had been engaging in over a period of 18 months on its repeater on 146.82 mhz.
3. Also in the early '80's, when I first had occasion to discover just what a bunch of liars the Commission's amateur enforcement people are, I took appro-priate action to educate the amateur community about it. First, I attended the non-renewal proceedings against former licensee Gary Kerr, WA6JIY, before ALJ Kuhlman. Riley, I've seen many a kangaroo court in my 28 years of law practice, but never anything like that run by "circus Kuhlman"! He wouldn't let Mr. Kerr say a damned word in his own defense! Don't get me wrong; I am not really defending Mr. Kerr's actions, but I am criticizing the extremely unfair nature of his non-renewal proceedings. By the time Mr. Kerr got before ALJ Kuhlman, the Commission and the U.S. Attorney's Office obviously had so prejudiced the ALJ against Mr. Kerr that Kuhlman simply wouldn't listen to him! After Mr. Kerr lost his license, a large number of his sympathizers, including me, decided we were going to serve as Mr. Kerr's control operators on 2 meters, so he could use our radios to keep talking to his buddies, pursuant to the
former wording of §97.115(b). The next thing I knew, former Commission Regional Director Richard Vaughan was trying to jump down my throat, claiming Mr. Kerr, as a former licensee, was not permitted to operate as a third party under the former §97.115(b). (Sergei Marti-Volkoff, bless his soul, was unwilling to perjure himself, and refused to do the job for Mr. Vaughan, so Dick Vaughan had to do it himself.) I basically told Mr. Vaughan to go have sexual relations with himself, largely as I am going to tell you to do in this letter. Former §97.115(b) simply did not prevent former licensees from being third parties. So what did Mr. Vaughan do? He got his little minion, Carol Fox Foelak,
who was then Chief of the Compliance Branch of the Special Services Division of the Private Radio Bureau (what a mouthful!) to initiate rulemaking proceedings to amend §97.115 and, as a result, the "Gary Kerr amendment" [§97.115(b)(2)] was added to §97.115! The point is that Mr. Vaughan, the Commission's Regional Director(!), was lying through his teeth in his warning notices to me: the Commission did not have the regulatory power it claimed to have; it was, as usual, just trying to unfairly throw its weight around; I called their bluff; and Mr. Vaughan eventually had to admit he was a liar by initiating rulemaking to amend Part 97 so as to add a provision which he had previously told me existed all the time! (So now I see, and as I will point out to you later in this Response, that the Commission is still up to its old, lying tricks in issuing me
my Warning Notice.) My action, in forcing the Com-mission, in effect, to admit that it is composed of a bunch of liars who will distort the true meaning of the Rules in order to make their own jobs easier, and who will try to concoct enforcement powers that don't exist, was of great benefit to the amateur community because it helped all amateurs recognize and understand just what kind of scoundrels are actually running the Enforcement Bureau, and made it much more unlikely that amateurs would, in the future, permit the Commission to take unfair advantage of them.
Anyway, as you can see, I've been a ham for 40 years now; and I've really tried to be a good one, and I've rendered a substantial benefit to the amateur community during my entire period of licensure! I've gone through the whole ham radio indoctrination process, I'm familiar with all the ham radio traditions, and it has been a large part of my life. So I hope you can understand that I am, actually, rather offended that you would accuse me of these things!
Also, while I'm on the subject of amateur exams, I sure as hell am glad I took all of my exams from the Commission itself rather than from a VE, because I know damned well that you would have called me in for a retest if I had taken my exam from a VE! I need to inform you at this juncture of two things: first, that you are fundamentally abusing your enforcement powers under Part 97 in a number of ways, which I will attempt to specify in this Response. One of the ways in which you are abusing your authority is by misusing the re-test procedure for a purpose it was never intended: as a means of punishment rather than for the purpose of guaranteeing the integrity of VE exams. It's just another example of your very unfair way of trying to make your own job easier by denying licensees their day in court, or any way whatsoever, really, to challenge your accusations or to defend themselves against your (often incorrect) allegations which have nothing whatsoever to do with the conduct of their VE exam, just to keep the
brownshirts happy! That is extremely unfair to the licensee, and has caused me to lose a lot of respect for you. So when are you going to stop engaging in that lousy, unfair practice, my man?
In other words, I'm not buying your press releases, Riley, and never have, because I can see through them. What they really amount to is that you're willing to serve as the brown-shirts' lap dog in order to advance your own career. Reading your own press releases too much is about the equivalent of drinking your own swill, you know. Riley, why in the world would I let a pipsqueak like you, who seems only to be addicted to nursing at the public's teat, and who probably couldn't even cut it in the private sector as I am doing, take away my license for no reason?
Now I note from your Warning Notice that you seem to be attacking my integrity, or are suggesting that I am somehow unqualified to possess an
amateur license on, essentially, a moral basis! Please let me advise you right now that if you are going to try to put my integrity in issue as a basis for attacking my personal qualifications to hold an amateur license, then I propose to put your integrity in issue, too, and I have quite a number of issues that I want to raise which tend to show that you have not always acted in the most honest, forthright and professional manner possible when it comes to enforcing Part 97. And since you have asked me to prepare a complete and entirely candid response [and since it is a separately-punishable offense under §308(b) of the Communications Act if I do not give you such a response], and not because I am trying to be
argumentative, I will try to specify in this response the various ways in which
you have, in my opinion, shown something of a lack of integrity and competence in the way you have enforced the amateur rules. And I trust that you will feel that I have been quite candid in doing so.
The reason I feel so strongly about this is that you have absolutely no reason to doubt my integrity. I am a graduate of my state's finest universities, my children are all highly-educated (i.e., I put them through college!) (the younger ones, still in school, also promise to be university material), so I think I am a good parent; I am devoted to my marriage and family; I work hard; I'm a member of the State Bar of California, and have been, continuously, for the past 28 years; I have never been convicted of any crime, ever, whether misdemeanor or felony; I have never been subject to any discipline whatsoever, whether public or private, by the State Bar of California; I have never had any kind of civil judgment entered against me,
ever; I have never had any license or permit revoked by any branch of government, whether state or federal; I have never declared bankruptcy; I pay my bills and I pay my taxes; and I feel that I am respected by the judges of California's courts and administrative agencies, yet you come along and
gratu-itously attempt to disparage my integrity! Why in the world would you attack an upstanding citizen like me? Are you crazy or something, Riley? And how do you think I am supposed to feel about being attacked and defamed in this manner? Actually, I think it displays a lack of integrity on your part! Therefore, your integrity is definitely going to be in issue if you do not drop these proceedings against me.
If you will pardon me for being blunt: I am just not going to let some petty career bureaucrat attempt to gratuitously besmirch my character so he can pad his resume, advance his career, kiss up to the ham radio brownshirts, or so he can issue more press releases! Life's just too short, and self-respect too important, to permit that! In that regard, please let me add that I am also going to raise the issue of your competence, i.e., the many mistakes that you seem to be rather infamous for making, on the basis that my Warning Notice is merely another of your said infamous mistakes. Also, and I must admit that these may only be rumors, but I have heard several hams insist vehemently that that there may indeed be some irregularities with your expense account for attending hamfests, and in my opinion there is some reason for me to credit their statements, although I have not had an opportunity to double-check them yet (and I do want to give you the benefit of the doubt), so I had better put you on notice now that if those facts do prove to be accurate, I am going to be raising that issue with respect to your integrity, competence to enforce the amateur rules, and further with respect to the level of credibility which the ALJ and the courts should accord to your testimony. Specifically, I have heard that you spent $5,000.00 of the taxpayers' money in one weekend at the Las Vegas hamfest, and if this
allegation proves true, then I just don't see how you can really properly spend
that much taxpayer money in one weekend.
Now I really don't know about FCC administrative proceedings, but in California we believe that it is unethical for an attorney to both represent a party and testify as a witness in the same proceeding on the basis that, if not actually unethical, the practice leads to the appearance of impropriety. That is, the attorney's credibility is inevitably compromised if he is permitted to both testify as a witness and advocate a party's case in the same proceeding. Therefore, I am advising you now that if you take me to an administrative hearing in this matter, I am going to call you as a witness on the issues of your integrity, competence and credibility, and that I am going to resist the ALJ allowing you to both testify on those and other issues and represent the Enforcement Bureau at the same time, so I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you should make arrangements to be represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office in this matter, assuming the ALJ follows the same rule of ethics that the California court does, which it seems they should.
Anyway, Riley, if I have to examine you as a hostile witness on the issues of your integrity, competence and credibility, I'm placing you on notice now that I'm also going to ask you all about the "phonetics fiasco", among other things. How long have you been a ham now, and how long have you been doing enforce-ment, and why didn't you even know that hams have always been supposed to use phonetics? Riley, the huge list of phonetics appeared in both the old and the new (post-1989) versions of Part 97! Didn't you ever read either version? And over how many years didn't you read them (at least 20 years, obviously, because you didn't see it in either version! Probably because, during that time, you were saying we hams were "self-policing", the exact opposite of what you're saying now, so you didn't have to read Part 97 for over 20 years!)? Or didn't you think you had to read Part 97 before last year because only then did you decide to begin making your career moves by kissing up to the brownshsirts, and your highly-touted enforcement actions merely represent your efforts to gain promotion? (And if a little illegality and unfairness to licensees results from your desire to make a name for yourself in enforcement, we all know those licensees can't really effectively complain about it, don't we?) Also, during that 20-year period, did you actually have any on-the-air experience, because if you did then you would have heard hams using phonetics all the time! So I must conclude that you had absolutely no on-the-air experience, so where in hell do you get off telling me how to operate? And then you publicly plead "temporary
insanity due to excessive RF exposure" as a defense, because you are otherwise at a complete loss for words? Well, then, Riley, since you raised the issue, I am entitled to examine you about whether your admitted "insanity" is temporary or permanent in nature; I need to know if you were still suffering from it when you issued my Warning Notice; and I intend to do that if you take me to an adminis-trative hearing. Of course I realize you may only have been joking when you said you were "temporarily insane" but, again, you raised the issue, I didn't, and I really need to ask you all about it at an adminis-trative hearing if I am going to find out about it for certain and thereby properly protect my interests as a licensee. I mean, you're the one who joked around about it, not me. I was just left to wonder exactly what you meant by such a lame joke. And if you were only joking about it, why were you reduced to being required to joke about it, rather than providing some substantive reason for your lapse? Was it really your attempt to avoid admitting that you really don't know your derriere from a hole in the ground about amateur enforcement? I intend to go into all of this at an
adminis-trative hearing!
So now for my factual refutation of your charges. First, I have never been on 3857 khz. in my life, and whoever told you I was is wrong. In other words, you're making another one of your mistakes. I have deliberately avoided that frequency because that's where Orv Dalton's (K6UEY) old buddies hang out, and they ran him off that frequency. I didn't want to get involved in Orv's dispute with the 3857 group, because I want to talk to Orv on 3830 and I've always wanted to give Orv the benefit of every doubt, i.e., a clean slate with no pre-con-ceived notions, in our on-the-air relationship. Now, Orv is your com-plain-ant, isn't he? Well, I've been nice to Orv. I have no problem with him, to my know-ledge. I thought we always got along just fine. He never contacted me to indicate there was any
problem before he complained to you. In fact, since he sent you his complaint, I have spoken to him several times on 3830 and we got along just great. Therefore, I was extremely surprised to receive your Warning Notice, since I had absolutely no idea that Orv had any grievances against me. Actually, I do remember now that I had one disagreement with Orv on 3830. It occurred when another station, Dennis Flora (N6UJY I believe his call is) showed up "drunk and disorderly" on the frequency. I agreed with Orv at the time that Dennis should go away until he sobered up, but Orv and I disagreed about whether he should be allowed back on the frequency after he sobered up. Apparently Orv seems to feel that he is the guardian of all ham radio morals or something, and unilaterally decided to run Dennis off the frequency every time he showed up after that, and I took issue with Orv about it. Riley, you should be on my side, not Orv Dalton's, because he had no right to try to run Dennis off the frequency! Is that why he's so mad at me? Well, why in hell didn't you require him to try to work out the problem
(whatever it is) with me directly before issuing your Warning Notice? I assure you, Riley, that I would have been very cooperative, had I been asked to change my on-the-air behavior in some respect that was bothering Orv (except with respect to trying to run other stations off the frequency if he happens to dislike them; I would never have agreed with him about that), but I never got the chance because he never asked me to do so! If a ham takes the trouble to contact me to complain about my operations, I always take it very seriously and try to remedy any of my short-comings because I really have an image of myself as being a "stand up kind of guy" where the ham radio is concerned. So whatever happened to the concept of hams being "self-policing", anyway? I notice that you give it a lot of lip service in your Warning Letters, but as far as I can tell, lip service is all it is!
As to 3820, we have discussed this matter before, and you specifically approved of the way I handled it, which involved my voluntarily going off that frequency forever. Indeed, in your e-mail to me on the subject, you stated you questioned the other stations' operations, not mine! I thought that was a final settlement of that matter, and conducted myself accordingly; i.e., I haven't been back on that frequency since. I kept our agreement on the assumption that you would, too, but now I find that you apparently do not wish to honor your own agreement, or probably that you've forgotten about it, and that you are in effect trying to punish me for being a gentleman with respect to the 3820 situation and for taking the initiative in solving the problem! So are you doing this on the principle that "no good deed should remain unpunished", or what? Now I am not saying I am going to go back on 3820 after receiving your Warning Notice, although it does seem that I should have the right to do so, but not because you are telling me to stay off, because you have no right to tell me that because you won't even honor your own agreement, but instead because, in addition to making a deal with you, I also made a deal with the other 3820 users and I am going to keep my word to them, even if you're not going to keep your word to me! However, I am most definitely going to assert your prior agreement about 3820 under either collateral estoppel or res judicata principles as a full and complete defense to any enforce-ment proceedings that you may bring against me for any
transmissions I ever made on 3820! I haven't been back on that frequency since you agreed with the way I handled the situation, Riley, so why in hell are you talking to me about 3820 now? Nothing has changed since we entered into our agreement, and you're still bound by it, my friend! I think perhaps you forgot about it! And I am also saying that I am going to assert your forgetfulness, or refusal to honor your own agreement, as another example of your mistakes, lack of competence and lack of credibility. You're simply trying to do too much enforcement, too fast because you're trying to please the brownshirts and to over-com-pen-sate for the 20 years when the Commission told us hams that we were "self-policing", and meanwhile did no enforcement what-soever, and you're trying to make me pay the price for your own career-climbing and failure to enforce the rules during that period! And I don't appreciate it one bit! I have no intention of being your scapegoat!
Next, there is the 3830 situation. Apparently someone has sent you a tape of my transmissions on that frequency, although I can't imagine why, and you rather pointedly did not volunteer the information in our telephone conversation. The short answer to your Warning Notice is that my transmissions on 3830 are not only specifically permitted under Section 97.1
of Part 97, the "Basis and Purpose" section of the amateur rules, but they are
precisely the kinds of transmissions envisioned as being necessary and appropriate under §§97.111(a) and (b). I was making inter-est-ing conversation in all of my transmissions, and such trans-mis-sions both contribute to the advancement of the radio art under §97.1(b) and advance my skills, and those of my fellow amateurs, in the communications phase of the art within the clear meaning of §97.1(c). Furthermore, I was helping to expand the existing reservoir of operators in the amateur service, as §97.1(c) tells us we should do, because too many boring QSO's on 75 meters are driving licensees out of the hobby. If you take me to a hearing, I am going to present evidence about how boring 75 meters is, and how I was providing a worthwhile alternative to that boredom. This is encouraged by §97.1, and therefore clearly does not constitute a violation thereof, as you wrongfully claim! The only problem is, if you force me to put on a lot of evidence about how boring and underutilized 75 meters is, it is going to redound to the injury of the amateur radio service because I will make sure that other radio services hear about it, and they will jump on that testimony as a means of bolstering their arguments that they should have the frequencies instead. If you take me to an administrative hearing, I am going to contact representatives of the other radio services and invite them to attend the proceedings so they can see how you've screwed up the amateur radio service, because at this point I'm starting to think that they really do deserve the frequencies more than hams do, and your mismanagement of the amateur service is something they should know about in making their arguments for frequency
re-allocation. So any further enforcement action that you may take against me in this matter is really going to hurt ham radio, and if it does, you have only yourself to blame.
Let me object here to your rather unremitting attempts to argue, in just about all your enforcement cases and your cheap shot, form letter warning notices, that §97.1 somehow gives the Commission the authority to regulate hams' free-speech rights on the radio. This wrong-headed litany of yours, besides having become extremely monotonous and boring to me, is just another example of your misinterpretation of Part 97, and of how you unfairly throw your weight around, by coming down on hams with the full power of the federal government and the U.S. Attorney's office, on another one of your cockamamie regulatory theories! And you do it because you want to keep the brownshirts happy, you want to get promoted, you want to be able to issue more press releases, and you know that hams are very unlikely to be able to successfully challenge your actions!
Section 97.1 gives the Com-mis-sion no regulatory power vis-à-vis free speech! It is merely the general "Basis and Purpose" section of the Rules, and I really resent your acting as if it gives you the power to regulate our free speech! As far as I am concerned, it just represents another example of the federal govern-ment trying to abuse its power, throw its weight around, and bluff the public into submission with its power. So I am placing you on notice now that if you take me to an administrative hearing in this matter, another issue I am going to raise is to whom §97.1 grants rights. My position is that it grants rights only to licensees, not the Commission. Indeed, §97.1 forms the primary basis for my defense to your unfounded allegations. My transmissions on 3830 were affirmatively per-mitted by §97.1, and you don't have any regulatory power under §97.1 to tell me that they were wrong! And even if you did have such regulatory
power, the language of §97.1 is so vague that it could not constitutionally be applied to regulate hams' free-speech rights. Clearly under §97.113(a)(1), your regulatory power comes exclusively from §§97.113, not from §97.1 You have to have an actual Rules violation in order to prevail in administrative proceedings, and you just don't have one in my case. Bernard J. Winner v. FCC (1980) 82 FCC 2d 343 and Walter Norman Russell v. FCC (1983) PR Docket Nos. 79-322 through 79-324.
Under your perverted enforcement theory, you can punish hams under the general "Basis and Purpose" rubric of §97.1, even though there is no Rules violation, which is totally contrary to Winner, Russell and §97.113(a)(1)! Hams are entitled to know to what extent the Commission can legally restrict our free-speech rights, so we can govern our speech accordingly, and §97.113 is the only section of Part 97 that allows you to do so. And Riley, you can tell me until you're blue in the face, like you've told so many other licensees to whom you've sent your cheap shot form letters, that I am "seriously misinformed" about the meaning of §97.1, but I'm telling you right now that I've already done the research and can prove that both the law and the legislative history of §97.1 are against you!
In determining the free-speech rights of ham radio operators, any court is going to apply the specific language of §97.113 and not the very vague and general language of §97.1. That is an elementary principle of statutory construction as it affects citizens' free-speech rights. (I am going to omit the citations in this regard at this time, because I am sure you are familiar with them.) Indeed, the plain language of §97.113(a)(1) requires that there must be some specific prohibition against the conduct in question, not merely some vague and generalized alleged "violation" based upon the "Basis and Purpose" language as is found in §97.1, before any enforcement action will lie on your part Do you want a court to finally and definitively determine that you have no enforcement power at all under §97.1, because I'm going to push that issue hard if you're going to treat me so unfairly!
So, in order for any enforcement action to lie under Part 97, the act complained of must be specifically prohibited by §97.113 or some other Section of Part 97. [Again, please see §97.113(a)(1)] The problem with your case is that I committed no such act. Now you say you have some tapes of me. Send them on over! I'd really like to hear them! I've never said anything on the ham radio that I was ashamed of, Riley, so I'd be glad to have an ALJ listen to what I said and then decide whether your admitted insanity was temporary or permanent. As I've mentioned, I will put my credibility and integrity up against yours any day of the week, my friend, with no problem at all. And, let me point out to you again, my trans-missions were specifically authorized by Part 97, so you are really 'way off base in issuing me a Warning Notice!
In addition to being specifically authorized by §97.1, as discussed above, my transmissions were also authorized under §97.111 as being ones necessary to exchange messages with other stations in the amateur service! In other words, my transmissions were exactly the kinds of transmissions that are envisioned as necessary and appropriate under the Rules, but you are trying to second-guess everything I've said on 3830 and punish me because you don't like the substantive content of my speech! I have absolutely no intention of tolerating that. Any attempt by you to try to force me to change frequencies, or to stop using any assigned frequency on which I have the right to operate, would constitute a content-based restriction on my free-speech rights, would be unconstitutionally vague and would therefore warrant strict scrutiny by the courts. There would also be a violation of §326, the anti-censorship provision of the Communications Act [47 USC §326 (1970)] because you would be restricting the content of amateur radio transmissions without justification, and this would give rise to a civil rights violation. I am going to pursue such an action if you don't rescind my Warning Notice.
There is also long-standing case law, in a highly-analogous Part 95 case, that the Commission can only prohibit a certain type of conversation over a particular frequency when the alternative would be to deny many intended users any access to the frequency. Lafayette Radio Electronics Corp. v. U.S. 345 F.2d 278, 280 (2nd Cir., 1965) (love that Second Circuit!). Even a cursory analysis of the elements of the Lafayette Radio decision demonstrates that the facts in our case militate in my favor and against the position of your complainant: after all, if I am allowed to stay on the frequency, everybody can use it. But if you allow your complainant to dictate who can use the frequency, then I am totally barred from its use and the other hams who want to talk to me cannot do so. Such a decision would violate Lafayette Radio. Riley, you should have considered the effect of the
Lafayette Radio case before you issued me your cheap shot Warning Notice! Now I fear that I am going to have to raise this as another example of your rather obvious ignorance of the law (i.e., lack of competence) or deliberate mis-statement of the law (i.e., lack of integrity and credibility) if we must proceed to an administrative hearing in this matter.
I'm sorry if I sound quite upset, but, Riley, you really take a lot of cheap shots in your Warning Notice! Really, that's what I'm starting to think you are, a cheap shot artist but nothing more! Sir, I have done nothing to deserve this kind of treatment! The only question at this point is, are you going to be a gentleman and retract your mistaken Warning Notice, or are you going to continue taking cheap shots at me, with the full power of the federal government behind you? You talk in my Warning Notice about my activities allegedly "degrading the hobby". Well, I have news for you, sir: I was never required to accept your opinions about what topics are appropriate for discussion on amateur radio(except for obscenity and threatening criminal acts),and I am not about to start accepting them now! In my opinion, my judg-ment about what degrades the hobby is better than yours, thank you very much! In my opinion, what most degrades the hobby is the really lousy job the Commission has been doing on amateur enforcement (especially the way you're pandering to the brownshirts), not any of my activities!
My point is that my opinion about what "degrades the hobby" is just as valid as your opinion, I simply am not required to accept your opinion on the matter; and you have no right to try to force your opinions on me under the guise of §97.1, or any other language appearing in Part 97. I am also going to go so far as to say that I am just as good a person as you are, and I have absolutely no intention of letting a career bureaucrat like yourself gratu-itous-ly insult my integrity when I am making an honest living in the private sector and am paying your salary with my taxes. I am not required to accept your judgment as to what topics are appropriate for discussion on the ham radio, nor do I want to accept your judgment on the issue.
Moreover, I should advise you that, for reasons which may be obvious to you, I am in the habit of very seldom doing that which I am not required to do and also do not wish to do. I liken it to a bicyclist choosing to ride on the road, even when a separate bike path is available to him (I'm sure you know how some motorists object to that): his use of the bike lane is optional, not mandatory. He has the right to ride on the road if he wants, and nobody has the right to tell him otherwise. Likewise, I have the right to stay on 3830 merely because I want to, and even though, as you point out, other frequencies are available for my use, and I really don't need you trying to bullshit me by telling me otherwise because you just don't have the authority to do so, so please save your breath! It is strictly my decision about whether or not I want to go QSY! You don't have any violation of Part 97 that you can prove because none exists, so you try to score public relations brownie points by calling me names instead. You really ought to be ashamed of treating a taxpayer this way, but you probably won't be. You owe me an apology for this embar-ras-sment! I find your statements about what you
think are acceptable topics of conversation on the ham radio to be extremely
fatuous, since you lack entirely the enforcement power to effectuate them, and your ventilations in that regard really amount to nothing more than attempting to throw your weight around, play to the brownshirts, and wait for someone like me to call your bluff. Well, I guess someone has. Have you ever heard about the piss ant who crawled up an elephant's leg with rape on his mind? Well, I'm the elephant and you're the ant! I mean really, Riley, I find your opinions about what is proper conduct on the ham radio (assuming no other violation of §97.113) rather boring and unconvincing, and I am really not interested in them in the slightest, nor am I required to display any interest in them, so please don't try to convince me that you have the right to tell me what I can say and what frequency I can choose, because you don't! In fact, you sound like something of a dweeb to me, and I therefore think I wouldn't even enjoy talking to you on the radio very much, so please don't presume to tell me how to talk to my fellow amateurs!
Do you know what else I find very fatuous about your Warning Notice, and about our subsequent telephone conversation? The way you make the facile assumption that your complainant is right in saying that nobody else wants me on the frequency. I am not going to bore you in this letter with the details about why he's wrong about that, but I will say that (as usual?) you just don't know what you're talking about! If we go to a hearing before an ALJ, I am going to put on a lot of testi-mony about this issue, since this seems to be the most important question in your mind and, again, I know a lot more about the facts on this issue than you do, and you're going to lose because your complainant is giving you the wrong infor-mation! In short, my position will be that your complainant is wrong and self-serving, and your conclusion that everyone else on frequency wants me to go away is extremely slipshod, superficial and merely another example of your poor enforcement work (i.e., your failure to properly analyze the pertinent issues). In reality, there are probably 10 stations on frequency, and only one of them (your complainant) wants me to go away. Why let that one station
dictate to whom the other 9 can talk? And do you know what else? Even if all ten of the other amateurs on frequency wanted me to go away, I still wouldn't be required to go! The issue of who wants me to go away and who doesn't is really irrelevant, since I have the right to use the frequency and they do not have the legal right to tell me otherwise. Do ten licensed drivers have the right to tell another driver he can't use the road, just because they don't like him? Of course not! He has the right to use the road, regardless of what the other ten drivers might desire. The exact same principle is involved here. I am specifically licensed to use the frequency, and my fellow amateurs have no greater right to use it than I do. If they attempt to run me off, then they're the jammers, not me! Again, Riley, you're simply on the wrong side of this case! You should be supporting me!
While we're on the subject of "facile and fatuous", I must say that I am also really offended by your rather obvious attempt to lump together my
transmis-sions on 3820 and 3830 as somehow being identical in nature, or as constituting some sort of pattern of bad conduct. Again, you just don't know what you're talking about! I will win on the facts at a hearing on this issue because both situations were entirely different, and I know how they were different and you don't! Entirely different stations, times and conversations were involved in each of the two frequencies, and your attempt to distort the facts and prejudice the Commis-sion against me by trying to lump them together as some kind of nefarious "pattern of conduct" is certainly rather gratuitous and unappreciated by me, to say the least! Please rest assured that I'm not going to let you do that at a hearing!
None of the activities prohibited by §97.113 appear. There are none of the usual indicia of any rules violations. This must already have occurred to you. You have an extremely weak case on the face of it, since you can point to no specific §97.113 violation. In view of the absence of any §97.113 violation, are you trying to tell me that an ALJ is somehow going to magically conclude that I am interfering with another station, when neither can you show any actual inter-ference? I don't think so! Now I fully appreciate that you are going to try to claim that my transmissions were conduct, not speech, but you still have the same problem: none of my conduct violated §97.113, so the only possible reason for you to be trying to hand me this load of shit is because you are trying to limit my free-speech rights.
You claim deliberate interference, but that is simply impossible. I never interfered with anyone on your tape because I have never operated that way. I always try to be courteous, and I always stand by to listen to other stations after I am done making brief comments in the roundtable QSO. I don't engage in monologues, nor do I try to monopolize the frequency. You can't prove any actual interference, which is the sine qua non of deliberate interference, because there simply wasn't any, and I really resent your apparent and unfair implication that you can, because I'm a good operator! If you claim actual interference, then I want a hearing before an ALJ over the issue, because I'm afraid your admitted insanity is indeed permanent! I just don't have to take this kind of abuse from you, and I have no intention of doing so! I have done nothing wrong, so who made you God? I would be perfectly content to go to a hearing over the issue, if you won't start thinking more clearly and back down.
Have you ever heard of the de minimis doctrine? I mean, what are you really saying: that I somehow injured your complainant's sensibilities so very badly with something I said on 3830 that he has the right to bar me from the
frequency entirely as a result? (It wouldn't be the first time he has tried to drive other stations off the frequency, you know!) Isn't that known as the "princess and the pea" school of Rules enforcement? If you want to play the "princess" before the ALJ, Riley, then Gawd do I ever want to go to a hearing! It would be worth it just to watch you make a fool of yourself, "Princess", even if I wound up losing! I really want to see you explain to an ALJ what I did that was so terrible, "Prin-cess"! Just be sure to bring your tu-tu and ballet shoes so you can appear in proper uniform, primadonna! I'm not being facetious at all about this point, Riley. As you know, all attorneys are required to show due and proper respect to the courts, and if you and the U.S. Attorney show up at the administrative hearing in suits and ties, I am going to argue that you are attempting to seriously
mislead the ALJ by falsely attempting to appear to be attorneys and civil
servants when you are really nothing but a bunch of princesses, because the
"princess and the pea" is the entire theory of your case, and you should be required to act accordingly! And I am going to move for a continuance on
that basis, until you guys go home and change into your princess costumes. I'm just not going to let you mislead the court by trying to pretend that you're not really princesses and are instead normal people. In fact, as I write this, I'm starting to think that "Princess" is really a good nickname for you, Riley! Therefore, I'm going to start referring to you by that nickname hereafter in this Response.
Your complainant hasn't suffered any injury whatsoever! I didn't force him to go away, as he is trying to force me to do! The remedy you propose is entirely dispro-por-tionate to the claimed "offense", and from the Senate's failure to convict Bill Clinton in the Monicagate impeachment we discovered that you don't impose a disproportionate punishment for matters which are essentially private affairs, didn't we? Since our QSO on 3830 was a purely private conver-sation, as a good Democrat you want me to be able to benefit from the same principle that saved your President from impeachment, don't you? After all, if President Clinton can repeatedly get blow jobs from Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office and it is considered purely a private matter, then certainly I can engage in a little argu-men-tation with my fellow hams on 3830, if that is what has got you in such a tizzy, Princess, and it should likewise be considered to be purely a private matter.
And what, exactly, is the reason for your secrecy about your so-called "monitoring evidence"? I mean, what would have been so hard about your sending me a copy of that tape and asking for my reaction to it, prior to issuing your Warning Notice? You still could have sent me a Warning Notice if I failed to adequately explain my transmissions on the tape. Were you afraid I would contradict the tapes, so you wouldn't be able to jump down my throat? Do you have something to hide? Are we playing discovery games? And now you ask me for a "complete and candid response" to your Warning Notice, on pain of further prosecution under §308(b) if I am not "completely candid", yet you won't even let me hear the tapes so I can reply to them candidly? Are you deliberately trying to keep me guessing about what you have on tape so you can claim I'm not being candid and go after me under §308(b), or what? Why in the world would you tell me I have to be "candid", and then make me guess about what I'm supposed to
be candid about? That is a really shitty thing for you to do, Princess!
Another essential element of my defense to your Warning Notice is that, even viewed in a light most favorable to the Commission, it amounts to nothing more than that you are complaining about your own lack of enforcement over the last 20 years! Princess, you of all people well know that we hams look to the reported decisions and your warning letters for guidance about our conduct, but for the last 20 years you have deliberately engaged in the rather deceitful practice of pretending or claiming to have enforcement powers under Part 97 that you clearly did not have, but instead telling hams to be self-policing! In other words, you've been perpetuating a lie based upon a lie! You've been falsely telling hams that you have enforcement powers you don't have, and then turned around and falsely told them that you weren't going to do any enforcement and that they had to be self-policing instead. You've adopted whichever of these false and
contradictory positions happened to serve your interests at the time! You've
compounded your deliberate mis-statements over a 20-year period! You did
this because you knew damned well that you didn't have the enforcement powers you were claiming to have, so you had to let hams solve their own problems (i.e., be self-policing) instead. But that cop-out sure didn't prevent you from lying about the enforcement powers you claimed you did have! By God, Princess, that's just so despicable!
As the direct result of your failure to do your job over the last 20 years, and as the further direct result of your compounded duplicity, as pointed out above, hams have not had the benefit of any developing law in order to guide their lawful conduct under Part 97! Instead, the Commission has engaged in the extremely dis-in-gen-uous practice of pretending that hams have no free speech rights under some alleged Part 97 "free speech no-man's land" where the Commission wrong-fully claims to have the right (usually §97.1 is cited, as discussed above) to censor amateurs' speech that doesn't otherwise violate §97.113 under the guise of "good amateur practice", while all the time the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was telling you that you didn't even have the right to regulate amateur radio at all(!) under the old Part 97, and the Commission was therefore forced to amend Part 97 in 1989 to give itself the power to enforce the Rules in the first
place! Did you think nobody noticed that or something? And aren't you ashamed of yourself for continuing to work and associate with such a bunch
of liars?
And ever since Part 97 was amended in 1989, you've been playing nothing but games with §97.101(b), which was first enacted in those 1989 revisions! Now §97.101(b) requires all hams to cooperate in sharing their assigned frequencies in order to make the best use of them, and further says that no ham has a preferential right to use any frequency, but in my case you're acting like §97.101(b) doesn't even exist! Your complainant simply doesn't want to share the frequency, as he is required to do under §97.101(b)! In other words, Princess, you should be on my side, not the complainant's! You are basically saying with your Warning Notice that you are going to give your complainant a preferential right to use 3830. Yet in other of your warning notices, you have relied on §97.101(b) in threatening to punish hams for doing exactly the same thing your complainant is trying to do to me (see, for example, your November 16, 1999 Warning Notice to licensee Alan Strauss, WA4JTK. There are several other similar such Warning Notices from you in the RAIN Report). Furthermore, even before the enactment of §97.101(b), the Commission revoked amateur licenses for not sharing frequencies in ways which, I believe, are highly-analogous to the way in which your complainant is refusing to share 3830. Plageman v. FCC (1984) PR Docket No. 84-531; File No. PR-2923-S and Ballinger v. FCC (1984) PR Docket Nos. 84-291and 84-292; File No. PR-2875-S. Certainly my argument, that your complainant must be required to share the frequency is, a fortiori, much stronger since §97.101(b) first took effect in 1989 than it was at the time Plageman and Ballinger were decided, yet even the
pre-Amendment cases support my position rather than yours! You'd better check yourself out in a major fashion, Princess! You're clearly wrong on the law!
In short, Princess, when this situation was first raised with me by the ham who I believe is your complainant, I carefully researched the law in good faith concern-ing the subject and tried to govern my actions accordingly but, due to apparent deliberate Commission action, I experienced great difficulty in ascer-tain-ing with any clarity how Part 97 governed the dispute. First I found your warning notices on the RAIN Report, saying that under §97.101(b) we have to share the frequen-cies, and threatening punishment if the objecting station refused to share, exactly as your complainant is doing herein. Then I found the Plageman and Ballinger decisions and saw how the Commission revoked the licenses of those amateurs because they refused to share the frequency, even before §97.101(b) was enacted! Of course, I really wanted to comply with the Rules, because I value my license. Because I was very confused about the state of the law on this issue after seeing how you were playing enforcement games, I attended a meeting of my local radio club, to which I belong, because my SCM, Jettie Hill, was going to be speaking, and I had heard that he was something of an expert on Part 97. I told Mr. Hill after the meeting that I was really confused about the meaning of §97.101(b), especially in light of your rather inconsistent enforcement actions, and how you appeared to be pretending that the law was something different than it actually is, and asked him what he thought. He said "nobody knows". Now with your inconsistent and non-existent enforcement, the Plageman and Ballinger cases, the plain text of §97.101(b), the fact that
§97.101(b) was enacted after Plageman and Ballinger, and my own SCM telling me that "nobody knows", of course I would think I had the right to stay on frequency under those circum-stances! Why would anybody in his right mind think he had to change frequency under §97.101(b), your warning notices, Plageman, Ballinger, and when even his SCM doesn't know the answer? And now you're taking exactly the opposite position! That's not fair, and it's dis-in-gen-uous, Princess, and you're trying to make me pay the price! And I don't like it! And it constitutes a full and complete defense to any enforcement action that you might bring against me! You want to have it both ways, but I don't think an ALJ is going to let you. You want to use §97.101(b) as a weapon when it suits your interests, but you want to deny its existence when, as in my case, it becomes inconvenient for you to acknowledge! And to top it all off, you're so damned arrogant and condescending about the way you do it! If you're an example of what Al Gore's "reinvented government" is going to be, then God help us! (Again, all of this goes to the issues of your competence, integrity and
credibility.) You act as if nobody else can figure out the commun-ications law but you, and you try to take unfair advantage of your (allegedly) somewhat exclusive and rather extensive knowledge about the subject. Well, you messed with the wrong guy this time, Princess, because, you see, I really have nothing to lose. I'll fight it all the way out with you, if you have nothing better to do with your time. Hell, after the IRS gets through with me, I have more time than money anyway! But don't you have any worse actors than me to pursue? After speaking to you on the telephone the other day, when you told me the hobby has become nothing more than a "taping contest", and that I'd better come up with some tapes in my own defense to counter those of your complainant, I don't really care that much if I lose my license, if that's what our hobby has come to. But I don't think it has, and I value my license, so I am going to fight your Warning Notice as far as I can.
Another real joke is the way you are claiming the one-sided tapes, provided to you by some other ham with an axe to grind, constitute "monitoring evidence". Gee, that term, "monitoring evidence", really makes your Warning Notice sound official and condemnatory, doesn't it? But whom are we trying to kid here, Princess? I mean, I know it sounds very impressive for you to claim you have "monitoring evidence" in your press release, but monitoring evidence must be developed by the Commission, not another licensee! I am going to object to the introduction of your so-called "monitoring evidence" into evidence at any admin-istrative hearing, Princess, on the basis that it is not relevant, not material, biased, prejudicial, possibly doctored (you simply don't know if was doctored because you can't prove the tape's chain of possession, as you are required to do at an administrative hearing) and does not rise to the level of legal monitoring evidence because the Commission did not collect it. Also, your procedure of accepting tapes from amateurs with an axe to grind violates the Hatch Act, and they are therefore inadmissible on that separate ground, Princess. As usual, you're simply overstating your case, trying to make your job easier and trying to pander to the brownshirts, but you've chosen the wrong boy to try to victimize this time, Princess! If you want to develop monitoring evidence, develop it yourself, as you are required to do! Do your job rather than sitting around writing up bullshit Warning Notices!
Princess, what in the hell did you expect was going to happen after the Commission failed to do its job for 20 years and then suddenly hung out a "blink-ing neon light", in the form of one W. Riley Hollingsworth, announcing that "we're doing enforcement again!" Didn't you foresee that maybe, after 20 years of no enforcement whatsoever, maybe some snivelers with an axe to grind would send you some one-sided tapes in an attempt to get rid of somebody they don't like on the ham radio? And why in the world would you want to side with, or believe, the licensee/taxpayer who's a sniveler in that situation, rather than the licensee/taxpayer (me) who's not? Are you trying to encourage sniveling or some-thing? (On second thought, I guess that's what Democrats do, after all. Then they try to get the snivelers to vote for them by promising them relief from their self-imposed problems.) But if you're not trying to encourage sniveling, then maybe you'd better take down that "blinking neon light"! Princess, I've been jammed, and hams have tried to run me off frequencies, for years! It happens to everybody at one time or another. It's just that I don't go sniveling to you every time it happens, because I'm a big boy and I can handle it myself. And
I'm not going to start sniveling to you now, either. (Actually, I did try complaining to then-Engineer-In-Charge Phil Kane in San Francisco one time about being jammed. He told me to take care of it myself, because hams are supposed to be self-policing, so I never bothered complaining again.) But please rest assured that, were I so inclined, I could tell you a bigger sob story than your complainant has done! But I would never do that. I'm simply not a whiner.
And if you take me to hearing, then I'm going to argue that there is no "free speech no man's land" under Part 97; in other words, that you have no power to regulate the substantive content of hams' on-the-air speech (except for obscenity and threatened criminal acts) that does not otherwise violate Part 97, because I'm getting really tired of you wrongfully asserting this to hammer the poor licensee. But the problem with such a ruling, if I obtained one, is that neither of us would like it. (I wouldn't like it because it would mean that we don't have the right to run a drunk off the frequency until he sobers up, the very situation which, I think, gave rise to this dispute.) If I win, you won't have any power to regulate the content of hams' speech on the air. Is that really what you want? So I can either yell, "the emperor has no clothes" now, or it can await another day, and in the meantime we will see if you start taking a more even-handed, considered and judicious approach to enforcement. It's really up to you, Princess.
And I find it really disconcerting that you are supposed to be an amateur
enforcement specialist, and I am not even a communications law specialist,
although you are supposed to be one, yet clearly I either ha
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just like anything else, you should check out ham radio for yourself.
Assuming you have an HF receiver, what does it sound like to you?? How long have you listened?
Bet it isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be on this and other forums.
But that shouldn't be a surprise; some people make a habit of constantly recalling negative events - sometimes the same events - even though they occurred 6 years ago......
As well, some folks like to complain - its just a way of life for them.
Some just don't get it and keep making the same mistakes over and over again.
Sounds like life in the big city, yes??
Looks like it applies to ham radio operators too.
73s......WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another Riley-bashing! Wow.
I think 3840 is tame compared to some hot spots on 75m.
Although it has gone out of control since Art Bell let his lease on the frequency lapse and it's been taken over by vandals.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N6AYJ on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
But the real question is: will Riley grant my application for the vanity callsign "W6WBJ", so I can use the phonetics "World's Biggest Jammer"? I think it's terribly unfair the way the Enforcement Bureau has been delaying action on my application, and it definitely constitutes an infringement of my free-speech rights, capricious and arbitrary administrative action, a violation of Title 47 USC, a moral wrong, intellectual dishonesty, and probably about 50 other bad things that I can't think of right now.
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by AA8GK on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ditto,
I was just listening to a QSO on 20 meters. Another station asked if the first two could just QSY a little up. To this the response was, "Well, I'll tell you Old Man, we've been meeting on this frequency since 1958...(blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum, you fill in the rest). Oh yeah, I guess the older you get the harder it is to remember what that big knob in the middle of the rig is for... or where you left those darn manners when you got up this morning.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N6AYJ on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Another Riley-bashing! Wow."
Oh, you haven't heard anything yet, Steve! There are just SO MANY other uncomplimentary things I could tell you about Riley. For example, did I ever tell you why he was demoted from Assistant Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to the lowly "Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement", a job that nobody else in the Commission wanted?
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by VE3EGA on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dont be too hasty to judge!
Remember, that what you hear up there at the top end of 80 (or 75?) is merely the result of Years and Years of Ham Radio....
They were the 'old guard' of this once-fine hobby, having gone through a couple of Wars, they were hams when most of us were a 'twinkle' in our father's eye!
Remember also that they are now probably mad as hell and frustrated no-end by the seemingly perpetual weekend contests and simply having nowhere else to go and 'ragchew' because their tired old tube radios are as wide as their barn-doors and relatively unuseable.
The have by human nature come to detest the Following:
All the CW 'nitwits' who want to crawl all over 40 (kinda like ants) and show off!
The RTTY 'dingbats' who forgot where the RTTY section of the band should be - no gentlemens agreement here!
The PACTOR mailboxes - who's owners must have long-since gone 'Silent Key' - cos they sure as hell dont LISTEN before they TX!
'ORION' (and other over-priced radio) users who choose to try and learn the vast complexities and functionalities of their radios - ON THE AIR instead of reading their manuals! (buddy SELL IT - you will never understand it!)
The Two 'halfwit's (soon to join the boys on 80m) who 'ragchew' for hours running 2KW when they only live 20 miles apart and could do it on 10 Watts - or better even drop in for a visit!
Old Canadian Hams who 'ragchew' in the DX Windows - just because they know they CAN!
Those annoying 'pile-up' creaters that make lists but never announce who they are and when you finally find out, discover they are NOT DX to you!
Despite all this - they (our 'ol boys) remembered that the top end of 80 was were 'ol' Bud' used to hang out! and now they finally can honor his memory by using 'his' old frequency....
Sadly, It's kinda the end of the road for those poor old boys too - you see, they must have had their braincells slowly fried by RF but amazingly, still remember that they have a random length of long-wire tacked to a fence-post that seems to load up just fine on 80m!
You might pity them? but they have found 'kindred spirits' to while away their remaining time reminiscing about the good ol' days, body functions, latest diabetic drugs and everything else non-related to radio - after all they were doing 'Ham stuff' when you were in diapers and just starting to get interested in the hobby by stickin yer fingers in electrical sockets!
There is probably a waiting list to join them - but whatever you do - remember - they consider 'breakers' extremely rude and will get real mad at you if you continue to interrupt! - didnt your Ma tell you about that?
Unfortunately, every so often one of the old boy goes SK (sometimes right there in the middle of a 'ragchew' - I know 'cos they are always asking things like 'where did Bubba go'or you back from the outhouse yet!) but no worries as his place is soon taken by yet another voice - so you (the listener) are probably hearing three or four different ragchewers every other day and just dont realize it!
perhaps it's ham-evoluton or our come-upance for ignoring our families so long???
I've already got my spot picked out on 80 - what about you?
:)
73, Terry
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by VE3ECMW2 on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You spouted:
"I think it's terribly unfair the way the Enforcement Bureau has been delaying action on my application, and it definitely constitutes an infringement of my free-speech rights..."
You know who you sound like? K1MAN. Exactly like K1MAN.
Bravo, you're in good company.
You disgust me.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N5XM on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To nn6ee:
Jim, I am not writing to dis you or argue with you. You don't have to like how the system works. Why the rancor? For you to say you have to have a psychiatric condition to be an OO or an OOC is like me saying everyone in California is crazy because they live there. It's not my fault there have to be rules. I sure don't write them.
If you don't want to use the system, what are the other options? I don't have a single problem in the world with free speech. I'm a big boy, and if I don't like something I hear on the airwaves, I turn the big knob to another frequency with a smile on my face. If OOs and OOCs are crazy because they think the rules should be enforced, are all the cops in California crazy because they want to enforce the laws? I know my opinion is no more than opinion. That's more than a lot of folks can say.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think part of the vanity call process involves pulling your file and reading what is in it.
It's only been since Jan 24th since you applied. They should be about half way done by now!!
You are the predicted winner of the call W6WBJ, your first choice of three. At present applications as far back as yours are still being processed. You should have your new call very soon to grace the airwaves with.
73,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by GOODBUDDY on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Bill you must be laughing your socks off with all of the responses to your "article".
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N4VOX on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well Bill, I bet Riley is still laughing at your response. It is really funny. Of course you never responded to the issues.
There are no public servants. Riley also pays taxes, so you could say that he is self employed. That makes more sense than your ramblings.
You were given a reasonable chance to resolve a problem. But you have thumbed your nose at it. You deserve whatever the FCC does to you.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KK7UE on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
WOW! Thanks to KB6REY who posted the letter referenced earlier I was unable to access. If what that guy asserts are indeed the 'facts', there seems to be a problem somewhere. Am I missing something? I found the namecalling a little juvenille, yet I understand how it came to that. When some people get backed into a logic corner, namecalling is the preferred method of deflection to their position. I see that all the time from liberals, yet that fellow sounded like he is some sort of an arch conservative. I find that hard to believe coming from the state south of me. Living amongst a flock of 'free to be you and me hug a tree' nitwits doesnt exempt this area from that lunacy. All I know for sure is it has given me a headache. I hope the parties involved get their collective 'poop in a group' and get on with life. Otherwise an interesting read. Intersting also how government has devolved into socialist light the last 20 years or so. Guess I better run any statements I make over the air through the local thought police before I become a similar victim of circumstance. What a mess. 73
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KK7UE on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Then again, I probably just dont understand what is exactly going on there. I've been wrong once before today!
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by NN6EE on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear N5XM.
Those were not the ramblings of a supposed MISFIT Sir!!!
The OOC & guilty PARTIES WERE FIRED!!! Maybe you can get some sort of confirmation from the illustrious ARRL, but probably not because of thie own stated problems with legal-litigation because of their "TAINTED" Radio-Cops!!!
Be it as it may IT DID HAPPEN AND IT IS STILL PLAGUING THE EBAY SECTION BECAUSE OF A "FEW" MENTALLY UN-STABLE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE ALLOWED INTO THE "SELF-POLICING ORGANIZATION" but through their GROSS arrogance are NO LONGER THERE!!!
I've been licensed since 1962 and am still licensed with full privileges and always will be under my license so I'm not worried 1 IOTA!!!
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K6JEB on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Regarding the situation in the East Bay section (of which I am a part): it sounds to me like the situation righted itself. The offending parties were given the boot.
So what is the issue with the ARRL?
I certainly have my issues with the ARRL. For instance I think they've been too SOFT on the BPL (Broadband over Power Line) issue and yet, now they are trying (possibly too late) to get tough.
Hey, at least it's not like Enron. Would you let someone from Enron even mow your lawn? :)
Like anything, such as political candidates, churches, or even spouses, you go with the one that matches most closely what you wish out of that relationship. And hey, the ARRL is the only game in town with regards to a national organization that will have some voice with the Powers that Be (FCC, feds, the marketplace, etc).
All the same, I will always be a fan of Wayne Green's wacky editorials and the energy he developed around them (bad and good).
"When everyone thinks the same, thinking has stopped."
maybe one day there will be an organization of hams that approaches the influence and vastness that the ARRL has. Until then, they are pretty much the only effective conduit to our policy makers.
Back to the larger topic: I sit in disbelief that we've all made this much noise, myself very much included, over N6AYJ's "pot-calling-the-jettle-black" article, that we've lost track of just how funny and ridiculous this whole thread was to begin with!
Bill I have to hand it to you, you've managed to push our buttons and we all fell for it.
Reminds me of your favorite President. No, not Dick Cheney, that other guy . . .. You know, the "uniter, not a divider" guy. He's also not a multiplier or adder or subtracter either, but that's maybe only partially got something to do with why the FCC is now somehow sponsoring a liberal take-over of the airwaves by not cracking down on people you disagree with.
It's so funny it's sad, and pathetic.
How come you don't just pick up your Bat phone and call in your favors with that crew you know in the White House to clean up the mess on 3840? You're so well connected, you make AT&T look like two kids with tin cans and string. Let's see your hand Billy boy!
And for anyone else who thinks there's some sort of vast liberal conspiracy to ruin not only ham radio, but that blessed little piece of turf you call home (and decorate with trinkets you think you're "buying American", like that 40" TV in your livingroom, when you're actually just another sucker in the outsourcing/race-to-the-bottom-line game and if you'd take the 30 seconds necessary to look at the tags on those soiled undies of yours, you'd see where they were made at, probably in some prison sweatshop in a country whose name you can't even pronounce, nor work on the air because you're too stuck complaining about 3840 and blue dresses), garden, car, and all the stuff that gives you whatever reason you think you have left to live for; I want to see some proof!
Come on! We're supposed to be so smart that we can write a PhD dissertation on RF, let's see you prove what you declare! Objective facts for once on how it came to be that ham radio is dying because the ARRL and Riley are part of the vast left wing conspiracy.
OR!!!
better yet, as someone mentioned a few comments up: HELP WRITE THE QUESTION POOL!
Jeez, with the amount of energy some of us expend on whining, we could probably host actual classes on the stuff we feel needs to be taught. There are SO MANY great examples of people making positive change in our hobby.
A local repeater group (WD6EZC) has a Thursday night Tech Net. The guy who runs it, Bob, AB4AL is possibly one of the most well-read hams I have ever encountered. He doesn't sit on a high horse and complain about things or how people 'nowadays don't know what I know', he DOES something!!! Every week he conducts a discussion on a technical topic, and he keeps everyone else involved! And we know for a fact that there are people who aren't yet licensed, who also listen in!
Kurt Vonnegut, the elder of most of us, a WWII vet, and famous author once told a crowd at one of his lectures "people nowadays DO have a short attention span . . . because they have more choices to make."
This is why I simply cannot complain about the question pool change. I am a VE and I am quite aware of the questions in the pool. Of course the questions seem easy to me, I've been a ham for twenty two years . . . they'd better be easy for me by now!
As a computer Tech Support person work-wise, I think many of you are really crappy computer owners (I'm joking, but trying to make a point, so stick with me for a sec), many of us "I.T. guys" joke about instituting an "Internet Driver's license" because we hear about people who are otherwise intelligent people, make really pathetic mistakes. But hey, my feeling is at least computers aren't just used by computer scientists. God forbid the day I turn on the radio and the only thing I hear is about RF engineering, or circuit design.
:)
The real dark secret being held by most of those who look down their nose at anyone who "didn't take the real exam" is that they just want to elevate their own low self esteem rather than help everyone (including themselves) by lending a hand to make things better.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by THERAGE on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
==The real dark secret being held by most of those who look down their nose at anyone who "didn't take the real exam" is that they just want to elevate their own low self esteem rather than help everyone (including themselves) by lending a hand to make things better.==
BINGO!!!
Being an OF myself, it never ceases to amaze me how many people I hear say that "ham radio is dying". Now we know. Instead of extinguishing the "almighty torch" you've been holding... pass it on to the next generation of hams. CW will never die. Just the OM will.
Now, where did I put my cup of tea?
73
|
| |
|
Disgusting Article Practices
|
|
|
by K3NG on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This has got to be a new low for eHam. This article is obviously a troll.
What's next for eHam? Paternity test results and cheating housewives articles?
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am listening to 3840 right now and I hear a couple gentlemen discussing radio stuff. They are graciously working a breaker.
Very nice QSO. What you have to put up with must be a 6 Land thing. How are the folks there on the road and in public? Same as on the radio?
There may be a connection there that is not the fault of the FCC.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by NN6EE on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K6JEB,
There's NOW no problem with the ARRL!!!
I've always been a MEMBER eventhough I don't always agree with all of their EDICTS and why should I?
It's just that I'm "sick&tired" of having "Trollers" not believing because that's all they have is to screw up on the Internet instead of trying to be DECENT people operating on the "RADIO"!!!
Though probably it's a case of those few perrenial CONTRIBUTERS out here who have a "Head-up-their-butts" and only want to stir up BS instead of actually knowing the FACTS!!! So to those few people who are detractors someday it'll come back to nip you JERKS in the butt as well!!!
Jim/ee
PS, To the "ANONYMOUS POSTERS" you're even WORSE than those of us who don't mind acknowledging who we are but yet express our "OWN OPINIONS"!!!
CL & Regards to ALL!!!
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by AC7DX on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WAIT a minute AYJ, Whats this in your FCC file?????????????
MainAdminTranslogService
File Number 0002458307 Radio Service HA - Amateur
Call Sign N6AYJ Application Status 2 - Pending
General Information
Mode Interactive PFR Status
VEC/Coordinator/COLEM
Signature
Signature Information William F Crowell Title Licensee
Comments
Description Date
None
History
Date Event
02/14/2006 Offlined for Enforcement Bureau Action
02/06/2006 Internal Correction Applied
02/06/2006 Offlined for Alert List Review
All History (6)
Attachments
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by NN6EE on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gee!!!
Does the "Bottom-Feeder" have to worry about getting his license RENEWED???
HMMMMMMMMMM!!!
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K3ASA on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Golly Gee! I am almost sorry I even read this stuff, much less replied (wayyy up above..) to some of it. I need to buy some more stock in Prozac.......there is a LOT of it needed here... Geez! I am oughta here, to more interesting (and friendly) areas. 73 to ALL and to all a good nite! Gene de K3ASA
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KILOWATT on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ah! Another prime example of why you should take that mic out to the sidewalk and smash it with a hammer. It is the preferred weapon of the "Moron".
The CW frequencies are still as they always were. Civilized.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N6AYJ on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Ho, ho, ho! I just LOVE tweaking you dweebs!
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KC9ICP on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I just got back into ham radio after being out of it for 20 years. I have spent most of my operating time on 40 meters and have enjoyed myself. Recently, I decide to try out 80 meter. Wow! I couldn't believe what I was hearing. It was like old time CB radio. Just as Bill decribed it's disgraceful how people are talking and operating. I don't know the answer, but I'll certainly don't like what I hear. Come on guys your represent all of us not just your own interests.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W3PH on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Personally, I operate 90%+ CW - no problem with the bozos there
That's usually true, but I was astounded at the intentional jamming of 3Y0X I heard on 40 CW - carriers, nonstop strings of dashes, people sweeping up and down over the frequency - I've never heard anything like this on CW in 45 years of operating. This wasn't a one-time thing - it happened night after night. Fortunately this isn't common on CW, but it appears that CW definitely isn't exempt from the phenomenon ...
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by N6AYJ on March 9, 2006
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Ho, ho, ho! I just LOVE tweaking you dweebs!
********************
I wouldn't at all be surprised if Eham Admin just decides to pull this troll article there "Princess."
Before they do, why don't you further enlighten us about yourself. You might as well give us your side of the story.
Bill, why did you decide to send that letter to Riley? What's up with that anyways?
Don't you take FCC notices seriously?
Just call me curious. The floor is all yours.
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KILOWATT on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Ho, ho, ho! I just LOVE tweaking you dweebs!
********************
I wouldn't at all be surprised if Eham Admin just decides to pull this troll article there "Princess."
Before they do, why don't you further enlighten us about yourself. You might as well give us your side of the story.
Bill, why did you decide to send that letter to Riley? What's up with that anyways?
Don't you take FCC notices seriously?
Just call me curious. The floor is all yours.
Charles - KC8VWM<<<
Charles: The man is the father of two and yet single. Even his woman couldn't put up with his egotistical bullshit.
He's part of that foul-mouthed clan that hangs out on 40m. I forget the freq. because I really have no interest in "mic jockeys" and their silly soap opera drama. I've just tuned across that freq. on occasion and heard his call there.
As a diehard CW operator I can honestly say that I do feel sorry for all of you "serious" SSB/AM operators out there. The crap that you folks have to sift through in order to practice your craft is unbelievable. There is always room at the bottom portion of the band and you're always welcome to join us. It's a little slower and maybe a tad more tedious but it's fun and no one will cuss you(or your mother) out. haha!
Good fortunes, brother.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sounds like i'll see you on CW..
--... ...-- -.- .. .-.. --- .-- .- - - -.. . -.- -.-. ---.. ...- .-- --
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N9NH on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been monitoring 3840. There are 2 groups that use the frequency. The 1st group is very interesting and fun to listen to. The 2nd group is the one that is causing the problem.-- filthy language, lude comments, tasteless conversation, poor ham radio practices.
One night in particular, the 1st group was having a QSO, the 2nd group got onto the frequency and drove the 1st group off the air.--they demanded the frequency, cussed the 1st group out, applied a constant FM carrier to the frequency until the 1st group left.
The 2nd group laughs and makes fun of their ability to take over a frequency. Don't these hams know that there are children and people from all walks of life listening.
It is time to note call signs, and record these hams and their QSO's and forward the information to Riley Hollingsworth and the FCC.
Mike -- N9NH
P.S. I hope the 2nd group reads this!!!
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K4SFC on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If we could "OutLaw" STUPIDITY & SELFISHNESS a lot of things would improve.
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA2ART on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just got back into ham radio after 25 years away and love it more than ever. Yeah, I've heard some of that stuff up on 75 since I decided to add phone to my cw operating. Seems to be that for a general class in 75 meters there are 150 KHz of operating space. There's got to be some open space away from those guys. I live in NYC and wouldn't stay 5 minutes in a neighborhood bar I didn't like so I sure as hell wouldn't spend too much time on a frequency where I didn't like the vibes.
Being relatively new to phone I've got to say that i've run into good people just wanting to QSO, to meet and hang for a while. I've discovered that nets are a great place to meet friendly, welcoming and civilized folks. And CW? Always great to be there. FISTS is like a big family. So what I'm saying is that sometimes life, and ham radio, sucks. You just gotta get better at finding and appreciating the nuggets of gold.
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KB3LSR on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Funny, this doesn't sound like the "low-life" no-code techs causing the problem. Hmmm....Could it be that some no-code people actually respect the hobby more than some General and Extra CW people? Afterall, those causing such problems had to learn code to legally operate. Now why would someone want to prevent us no-code techs from gaining access to the HF bands? It makes no sense if the people that are the "CB" type are both no-code techs and Extra/General ops. It sounds like no matter what license class anyone is, they can be lumped into the "nasty CB" category.
Those are my 2 cents.
As far as cleaning up the air, why not just file reports? The FCC is there to handle that sort of thing.
73 de KB3LSR
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WW0H on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It figures that someone would blame the ARRL for this mess. They get blamed no matter what happens. When they were supporting the higher code requirements, they were accused of living in the past and being a bunch of old fogies. Now with the code requirement all but gone, it's their fault that the "riff-raff" are on the bands.
Code, no-code, multiple choice or essay test. None of these train an operator. They test for the proficiency required to hold the license. We need to set the example ourselves of good operating, self-police (document, record, and forward to an OO), and not indulge in the same bad behavior. Sometimes I'm surprised that anyone has the nerve to post anything here because no matter what the subject is, someone is going to find fault with it. Nothing positive, just criticize. Our example must be good operating and good manners, on the air or on the forum. Slinging mud, pointing fingers, and blaming someone else helps no one and changes nothing. Each of us must do our best to improve anything.
John - WW0H
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W6WUH on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First, note a marin county cal ham just got his ticket pulled for 2 years ... as a result of repeated citizen complaints, which led to fcc monitoring, which led to letters from fcc which got his ticket surrendered under threat of jail/$10,000 fine.
That is how game is played.
That being said:
Gosh... isnt being over 70 , wearing plaid pants, and being "impaired" almost a prerequisite to operating 80M phone at night ?
All the "owned" frequencies, daily bowel movement reports, and the rest, part of the scene.
Yes do:
1. find out who your Official Observer Station is..
or become one !
2. Copy illegal activity to a .wav file on your computer.... and attach to email to Riley... forget tapes.. they get lost. Then everybody is on the same page.. and the sounds are connected to the complaint.
3. Actually send formal complaint letters.
Get 50 of your closest friends to do the same...
and make sure letters all arrive in the same week, and in the same office, under the same heading.
Then do the obvious, use 75 in the daytime when it is nice... take advantage of the dial.. and find a nice group in a nice spot... and dont play swl on 75 !
5 cents please
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W2JLW on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TODD5251 wrote "Well, as a person studying to get into this hobby, I must say this sounds like something I can get on 11 meters. Please tell me all the hard work I am doing is worth it."
May I ask what hard work? Memorizing questions and answers?
I know two guy's that memorized the questions and answers in two week's and haven't a clue what they read.(They admitted that to me) They passed their test's.
When I told them they would be able to use their Kenwood 440 and 940 rig's on the 20 and 40 meter bands now, their response was "I'm not sure my radio has those bands, what numbers are they?"
DUH! I rest my case. Think I feel good welcoming these guy's to the ham bands?
It's in my opinion, if you have to work for something it would be respected more. Granted there still will be problem guy's as we are witnessing out there. But, Keep working hard and learn what the hobby is about. Don't worry about other bad ham's. When you get on the air you will meet a lot of good operators.
Even though they are giving the licenses away these days doesn't mean you have to take advantage of that. LEARN proper operating procedures and abide by the rules. You will have fun.
Enjoy the hobby and good luck.
73
Lenny
W2JLW
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA5VQM on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'd been inactive for about ten years, returning about 18 months ago. The biggest shock was the language commonly used on the bands. I'm not talking about the 75 meter crowd which has always been a pit, I mean in common usage on various bands.
My language may get a bit rough around the edges in known company but I have always felt than on the air a higher standard was called for. I know the arguement is that ham radio is just reflecting society but that's a cop-out. It's your mouth, your microphone, have some class.
73, Mark
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W2JLW on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree the language has gotten bad along with other operating practices. Like you, I was inactive for quite a time while I was racing Stock Car's. After I retired from racing and came back to radio I was shocked how different it was.
I've always heald a rule of thumb while talking on the radio. "Never say anything you wouldn't want your mother or grandmother to hear"
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KB9BK on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you have a complaint, there's a way to let the FCC know:
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/AmaCmpl.html
Complete instructions can be found at this URL including where to mail the recordings of the alleged violations. If enough people notice the inappropriate behavior and notify the FCC through the proper channels, something will be done. If N9NH or anyone else monitoring 3840 hears the inappropriate behavior that is not in compliance with Part 97, report it.
Some folks may think the FCC is ineffectual and that it's a waste of time to send complaints to them. My response is, if it's that only channel we've been given to "self-police" our own hobby (service), I think we should take full advantage of it.
Kevin KB9BK
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K1CJS on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Title 47 of the U.S. Code, Section 154, paragraph (B), provides that such evidence must be provided by either a Commission employee or an OO."
This may be true, but if one of us provides such proof to the commission, who is to say they will not get their own evidence by monitoring the frequencies. After all, we are asked to get the frequency, time and date of such operation simply because we are telling them where to look for the evidence we are giving them a sample of.
It is amazing how some people don't actually read what they're looking at--even though it is staring them right in the face! 73.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K1CJS on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If you think it's bad now-- wait a few years till after the arrl and the FCC complete the droping of the code test-- it will be lid o rama on all bands-- standby OM..."
There are bad operators no matter where you look, UHF, VHF and........EVEN HF!
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N6AYJ on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KILOWATT WROTE: "Bill, why did you decide to send that letter to Riley? What's up with that anyways?"
ANSWER: Because I wanted to tell him what an idiot he is.
"Don't you take FCC notices seriously?"
ANSWER: Of course I do. And when they're wrong, I take them seriously enough to explain why.
W6WUH wrote: "First, note a marin county cal ham just got his ticket pulled for 2 years ... as a result of repeated citizen complaints, which led to fcc monitoring, which led to letters from fcc which got his ticket surrendered under threat of jail/$10,000 fine."
ANSWER: Not true. He has only received a Warning Notice to this effect. He still has more time before he is required to reply to it, and nobody knows how he will reply, or what the final outcome will be. One thing we DO know is that Riley admitted in the Warning Notice that he received "fake recordings". Therefore, it doesn't appear to me that the recordings would be admissible at an ALJ hearing, so I wouldn't be surprised if that ham beats his case.
Lenny, W2LJW, wrote: 'When I told them they would be able to use their Kenwood 440 and 940 rig's on the 20 and 40 meter bands now, their response was "I'm not sure my radio has those bands, what numbers are they?"'
Lenny, thank you very much for giving me my daily guffaw! That is SO FUNNY! You made my day!
KB9BK wrote: "My response is, if it's that only channel we've been given to "self-police" our own hobby (service), I think we should take full advantage of it."
ANSWER: I think you may be a little bit confused. Complaining to the Commission is not being "self-policing". It is, instead, asking the Commission to do our "policing" for us. Hams apparently don't want to bother with being self-policing anymore. All they want to do is sit on their butts as they snivel and complain. For a musical exposition of this phenomenon, listen to: http://users.innercite.com/bcrowell4/Im A Ham Operator.mp3
K1CJS wrote: "but if one of us provides such proof to the commission, who is to say they will not get their own evidence by monitoring the frequencies(?)"
ANSWER: I am.
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KB9BK on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
N6AYJ. I'm not confused at all. I put "self-policing" in quotes because that's the term someone else used above. Using your term, "snivel and complain," I would still recommend making use of the URL I indicated above. Snivel and complain, squeal on, rat on, tattle on, etc., whatever you want to call it, if one wants to complain to the FCC, I simply think they should use the method the FCC has asked us (licensed amateurs and the public) to use. The instructions on the page are very simple. Be sure to check it out.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"When the FCC concentrates on censorship more than enforcement, we all suffer"
RUBBISH!!! That's NOT censorship. That is simply maintaining COMMON DECENCY; and, in case you haven't noticed, the EXISTING law. The people of this country decided long ago that they DID NOT want to hear that kind of garbage on the air and I, for one, wholeheartedly support their decision.
Tom KB5DPE
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WR8D on March 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Reading down the thread i see many suggest what is the exact thing to do. Just record, date and time stamp it and then send it to Riley. We put a fruit cake off 75 here locally for several years, kicked him out of the local amateur club and banned him from using the area repeaters. No more cussing, qrming and "drunk" shows. If we'd all give it a try we could clean the bands up. It looks to me though that mainly most of you want to sit around and actually listen to these idiots make fools of themselves. Who would sit and listen for "hours" as the author states if not enjoying the show. Even me, i can preach at you on this subject and not take my own advice. I just went to cw and do all my radioing there. The world is a damn mess, we've had idiots on the bands since ham radio came into being but in recent years its gotten much worse. We are being "devolved" into a glorified "cb" state. I hear it everywhere except on the cw bands. You may not like me saying this, but listen to cb any day then switch to the hambands and you'll hear the same ole crap. What the author complains about is about to get magnified by an unimaginable amount very soon by this dumb down of our standards and test requirements. I've been bitching on this subject for the past few years. Most the idiots here locally coming in from the hardcore cb types are all going to 75 meters and adding their filth to what was already there. Look at it this way though, they're to stupid to do code or even type, so cw and the digital modes are the place to be. 73 John
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WR8D on March 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I forgot to add, anyone can call Riley and give him a complaint on the phone. Give him a frequency to listen to, a time, and a call or calls to look for and he will be there. I can say this for a fact because thats exactly what took place here locally. We cleaned up our little part of the mess. We can't take on the whole US though. --... ...-- WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA5VQM on March 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W2JLW: "I've always heald a rule of thumb while talking on the radio. "Never say anything you wouldn't want your mother or grandmother to hear"
I take that rule seriously. My Mom IS a Ham (Dad too) so she might hear me! LOL.
73, Mark
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KB9YGD on March 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well there are may hams that wouldnt make a pimple on a real hams hindend...These types are at home,very comfortable with the nonstructure,chaos etc in cb radio and bring it along with them when they get a ticket.There are hams in this area that are extras but perfer the cb radio where they can use their profanity unchecked and there are groups on 75 that cant seem to be able to or dont want to go to any groups that are civil.Its allways been this way and most likely will stay this way.73, de kb9ygd
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W5HTW on March 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Been trying to figure out what this thread is about.
I give up
Bye
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on March 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ranting, raving, jamming, music, cussing, etc., etc. for hours on end. Totally out of control!
==============
K8AG:
It's not a matter of FCC censorship. While ranting and raving are not illegal, (unless not ID'ing is involved) cussing and music are specifically prohibited; not just by the FCC but in a wider sense by the original Communications Act of 1934. While the FCC has no right to censor WHAT is said, it has set a standard as to HOW it can be said, and what sort of language can be used, over the public airwaves. The whole idea is that the FCC (or our government in the U.S.) can not prevent ideas from being expressed, but it can limit the manner in which thopse ideas can be expressed. (The courts have upheld fines against broadcast stations that carried offensive Howard Stern broadcasts on the public airwaves; we should hope Amateur Radio would be a bit better than that level. And now that Mr. Stern is on satellite radio, a paid-for service, he's in the same category as cable TV: anytyhing goes, because people have to pay to listen or watch; it's no longer the public airwaves.)
And as long as the FCC enforces it's rules equally (even if it seems at random) there should be no complaint of discrimination.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on March 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Been trying to figure out what this thread is about.
I give up
Bye
Ed"
There are those that disobey the law because they want to be defiant.
Then there are those that disobey the law because they don't even know what the law is.
Then there are those that don't know the difference.
Sorry, Ed, keep reading. Mayve you'll learn.
73 Tom KB5DPE
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W2RBA on March 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I thought this would be perhaps a serious article but all it turned out to be was some blowhard's misguided attempt at "retaliation" against Riley. What a waste of time! I'm outta here.
Thank goodness for CW and 160m!
73,
Joe, W2RBA
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W1UOY on March 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think that if I hear "break, break" on the bands one more time I am going to puke !
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W9AKH on March 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I´m looking for a Home Depot in my area. Can´t find one. Can anybody help? Thanks.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices (see NO CODE )
|
|
|
by WA6CDE on March 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Last year at Dayton I took my grand daughter. I couldn't monitor the 2M talk-in because of the filth on the frequency by those who were harrassing the talk-in operators. Ham radio has really picked up some low-lifes!
Yes indeed... the future of ham radio... but, as they said RH is too busy and doesn't have the resources to go after these people... and if you do .. you will end up like so many that were involved with the 40 mtr wars... a buch of years ago... as suits were flying with the you said... you wrote... and you prove it was vs... my rights...
What all this comes down to is the reason you were selling off your equipment... so did I after hearing how the ham bands were dummyed down... and the ARRLs new prop...
But, what can you blame it on... the old hams were as bad however, they usually hung out in their groups.. and didn't go up and down the band harrassing people and making snyde remarks when others were phone patching...
Ahhh yes the reason that most of us went to CW and other digital means... to get away from these ... wonderful people who don't know much about electronics or commucations.. and don't care to either...
Then their is the lowering of the code requirement to where it became easy to get a license... now for some that respect the privilidge ... it worked out great .. for others... that were now frustrated because no one would talk to 'em... started jamming and doing the stuff you heard... it was so easy for them to get licensed... that they didn't respect it and so it boored them ... and they resorted to their kind of fun.. just like on CB...
And now.... they want to do away with the code requirement... all togeather... geee just think of the fun that we will have...
I would rather see the FCC clean up their act and protect the ham radio... than open the door and lose all control of it...
But, as the ARRL says... were self policing... right!!!... You go tell them that they are not nice people when they talk that way.. and see how the wolves attack in the pack... then after you gain your composure.. come on up to CW section... you don't need to worry about that sort of thing up their... they are either too dumb or stupid (their choice... maybe both :)) to learn the code... and if you send with a swing .. their computers won't be able to convert it for 'em... and so they go away... which is what was wanted in the first place....
Yep you all having fun yet... wait it will get better... and in the wings is the digital Voice mode... DVM... and you should be able to ignore them by setting a code for the people you want to talk to... while leaving them in the crapper... where they belong...
good luck all you gun ho's.. who think that no code is going to be great... I can hardly wait... saving a lot of calif cheese for your whine... when big bad mouth time starts and you get stepped on... Ya RH is going to save you burning ears... huh... and clean up the bands... get real...
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WR8D on March 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KB9YGD, you hit the nail on the head perfectly. I agree also we've had weirdo's on the bands since amateur radio was invented. My experiances with them though is here in this part of the country its gotten a thousand times worse in the past few years due to what you mentioned about the extras and the cb band. The little local hamfests are over run now by the cb crowd. Nothing but filth, and what i call the dregs of the earth. They get a ticket and then put the mars mod in their rigs and run them and their amplifiers on the cb band. Nothing learned by getting the ham license. No respect for radio or rules and reg's. The license on the wall says they're extra class but its just a worthless paper. The ham license only turns them into high powered chickenbanders. We'll all get a taste of what i've been bitching about soon as the code is dropped as a requirement. Trying to turn the hambands into "glorified" cb is what i see as their mission. Several of us here locally tried evey way to elmer them and we got cussed and told they knew more about radio than we did. These individuals had 25 years of hardcore freeband chickenband under their belts. The elmers were respectful amateurs some with over thirty years on the hambands. Like i said, we've not seen nothing yet. --... ...-- John
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by MI3LVZ on March 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Bill, i totally agree with you, i am only back into the hobby after a twenty year holiday, the HF side of things here in Northern Ireland are good, but after buying a two meter radio i wish i hadnt bothered. Very bad language, keying up over operators and all sorts of bad behaviour are common place, i thought we left this carry on behind us in the CB days!!! it appears not to be the case, i wish the stations practising these activities would do us all a favour and take up suicide as a hobby.
Martin McCloy,
MI3LVZ
Northern Ireland.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W2RDD on March 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm 100 percent cw and will remain so until the bitter end. But I fear we may find those cretins...you know, the ones who learned to walk erect yesterday, on cw soon. Oh no, not for communication but to put their elbows on their keys and interfer with everyone else. Don't think the vandals will confine themselves to 75m SSB. Only hope is that their rigs will blow up real good as John Candy used to say on SCTV.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The complaints I am reading here sound just like complaints I read in the QST magazine I have sitting on the table here.
The date is October 1986.
It seems like not much has changed.
I am also curious about the nature of the comments. If this stuff is currently going on why not post the offender's calls here on eHam for all to see?
Or just go to their PO Box and glue the lock shut and start a flurry of complaints to the FCC. It will seem to them that they are being ignored and THAT is what really ticks the FCC off, not trashing the ham frequencies.
And don't forget the power of the digital recording. Much fun can be had with those.
"Sound Forge" can be used to ID both voices and transmitters if you know what to look for and how to use it.
It seems that the biggest reason we have these problems is because we complain to our friends and do little else to address the issue. And we have been doing so for 20 plus years.
73,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA6CDE on March 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted By K8MHZ
The complaints I am reading here sound just like complaints I read in the QST magazine I have sitting on the table here.
The date is October 1986.
It seems like not much has changed.
I am also curious about the nature of the comments. If this stuff is currently going on why not post the offender's calls here on eHam for all to see?
Or just go to their PO Box and glue the lock shut and start a flurry of complaints to the FCC. It will seem to them that they are being ignored and THAT is what really ticks the FCC off, not trashing the ham frequencies.
And don't forget the power of the digital recording. Much fun can be had with those.
"Sound Forge" can be used to ID both voices and transmitters if you know what to look for and how to use it.
It seems that the biggest reason we have these problems is because we complain to our friends and do little else to address the issue. And we have been doing so for 20 plus years.
Clearly your were not around in the 70's when the westcars wars were going on... but, you should be ashamed of your slef... for promoting federal offenses
Yes you go glue a PO box shut.. and I can garentee you that your going to the big house with bubba and his friends to be the new rubber maid doll... for all to share... you best not be promoting illegal stuff...
Then their is the recordings... ahhhh this was interesting... as most can get you sued for just about all your good for... and then the creatons will have you to support them for the rest of their lives... as you will be the one doing it...
Nice huh... you go cowboying and your the one that gets his butt kicked...
Again... check out the happenings when the FCC, westcars and hams all got into it back then... RH was around... and what happended even effected him... as they also tryied to get him removed from office... as one side said... your not doing anything... and the other side said.. you don't have the right to do anything...
but.....
Wait as the ARRL was really kinda like playing hide and seek... you know whent the tough get tough.. the ARRL gets going... and hides... as all this junk... that happend back then... they hid in the back of the room with the lights out... like no one was home...
And after the storm... they came out and proclamed .. they had trimphed... ya right...
So don't go promoting voliance their bud.. as that will only get you into trouble... their is only one way to take care of these jerks... turn the radio off and go take up another hobby... as a lot have done...
Oh ya... and tonight I get to listen to some whacko from coonki land... talking SSB on my cw frequency...
Hello Rilley... what the hell... my band plan says... its cw only... go sick 'em tiger... and whack their pickle... like for sure ... and we won't talk about the ARRL who should be protesting that...too... grin...
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA6CDE on March 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sure....
you don't know how rough they can play... from your writing... you know they have the best underground for dealing with people who trun them in...
First off your the one that is leagally responsible... and they know it... so you go writing letters and your in hard print... especally to a public agency which makes has to give it out to the public... thus when the attornies show up... they have your written letter.. signed by you that is accusing their client... and guess who is now up in the cross hairs... grin...
Second... you go getting your buddys to also write in.. make tapes etc... and because they are your buddies... a good attorney will quickly find that you all contrived to conspire against his client... again making not only you but now your buddies also liable for slander and harrassment... now a hate crime that is punishable by going to prision... gee ya wonder if they have a ham set their too???...
but,... again you don't need to think they are not going to come after you... and you think your driving around on the radio is fun... they will be listening and when your telling your buddy that your out and about... guess who is going to be paying a visit to your house, your parked car.. etc...
You have to remember these are not nice people and have a distrubance associated with their actions... thus by you putting their name and address, call sign or any other thing about them up or harrasss them in any way... to the feds and ARRL... and your really going to look like a deer caught on the road in the headlights of a on coming mac truck...
How do we know... well from years of experance... on the ham radio... we have just about seen it all... and heard it all too... and when these wackos start in .. it ceese to becoming fun...
But,.. if your bound and determined to try and take 'em on... may I suggest that you change your address to a PO box and not go mobile on the radio... ever... least you will have some privacy... and not fear the noises at night as they are ripping down your antenna tower, putting pins through the coax and breaking in to rip off your radio gear...
If you haven't learned by now the law is one thing... what happens is something else.. and most of the time the responder gets his butt whacked for standing on his rights...
I know a lot of hams that ended up paying for a attorney to protect what investment they had... and if you talk to them... they will tell you... its just not worth it... take up a new hobby... before you lose all...
and now you know why... they only whine to their buddies... and no one including the ARRL does anything about it... sad but true... as only the radical ones manage to take themselves out... from what we have seen... REMEMBER... ITS A HOBBY... NOT A RIGHT...
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N7TRZ on March 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"THANKS ARRL for your help in dumming down the requirements and helping turn the hobby into a high power DX CB band!!"
I didn't wade through all the posts, but a couple posters are right on the money about this being a longstanding problem, one that the older, tougher requirments failed to do much about. Seems like the most obstreperous, grizzled, persistant, clueless nincompoops caught on the air, cited, and fined, have Extra tickets. And I know plenty of intelligent, curious, experimental-minded hams, of both genders and wide range of ages, who started out in CB and wanted something better and got their tickets. Like me! But then, I think most of you folks knew that already! Just remember: this was going on 30 and more years ago, it is not any worse than it was then, it will probably always be a problem, and be thankful you have the brain cells not to be acting like that. "There, but for the grace of God, go I..."
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KB3MPZ on March 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am but a tech but I do listen on HF bands. On many occations I have heard the same type of activity you mentioned. foul language, use of wrong emision type on a band just to cause interference, over modulated noise, music and total discurtacy.
I got my ham license because of this kind of activity on cb. The bootleg problem will never go away since anyone with a paypal account can buy equipment on e-bay and most dealers without being asked to show proof they are licensed. It is also a well known fact that technically orented tests and morse code exams have never worked as a filter to keep undesirables off amateur bands. I still have a cb only because as a truck driver there are times I still need it.
We may be self-policing but to rid the bands of the bootleggers and the type of lids I have heard the FCC needs to step up and take action.
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA2ADS on March 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, this is what happens when you dumb down the hobby to sell radios. Thanks to ARRL and its advertisers. Of course, while the FCC is better at enforcing the rules, they are not what the used to be before 1980.
Unfortunately, this is the US where the bar has been lowered on everything, including 75 meter on air behavior. When it comes to 75 Meter on air behavior those folks would be better advised to keep their mouths shut, then opening their mouths and removing all doubt about their mental incapacity.
The best thing you can do, is ignore them and keep operating. That is why CW is still a much needed mode, if for nothing else than Ham Radio peace of mind. Those idiots really have no ability so you are pretty safe in CW mode.
Alex
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KILOWATT on March 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>Funny, this doesn't sound like the "low-life" no-code techs causing the problem. Hmmm....Could it be that some no-code people actually respect the hobby more than some General and Extra CW people? Afterall, those causing such problems had to learn code to legally operate. Now why would someone want to prevent us no-code techs from gaining access to the HF bands? It makes no sense if the people that are the "CB" type are both no-code techs and Extra/General ops. It sounds like no matter what license class anyone is, they can be lumped into the "nasty CB" category.
Those are my 2 cents.
As far as cleaning up the air, why not just file reports? The FCC is there to handle that sort of thing.
73 de KB3LSR<<
You are correct. This is not the doings of "techs". These guys are all Extra Class operators that feel as though they are bullet proof. The sad reality is........they ARE pretty much bullet proof.
The FCC is overwhelmed and they haven't the ability to track down every single violator. That's why we hams are considered to be "self-policing". haha! I know, what a joke. Self-policing only works when you're dealing with decent people.
These boys on 75M know this. They know that the FCC hasn't got time to waste on chasing down some guy that cusses on the air. Foul mouthed ops will NEVER be dealt with and sadly, that's just a reality.
This is why I'm a CW operator. Yes, CW ops could be just as vulgar but for some reason, they're not! Go figure! I guess the bottom line is; The harder you work for something, the more you appreciate it.
God bless you, Samuel Morse. Who knew that your invention would become the "bone of contention" that it has?
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by W0RER on March 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CW is always a nice way to know that you won't be dealing with SOME hams who got their license out of a Cracker Jack Box.
Self-policing, Digital Modes, and CW are the way to go to avoid these nimrods.
David, W0RER
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA2ADS on March 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"We may be self-policing but to rid the bands of the bootleggers and the type of lids I have heard the FCC needs to step up and take action. "
Amen! But we shouldn't hold our breath.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by AA9KK on March 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm not a tobacco smoker, however after reading this entire thread I asked a friend for a cigarette and actually managed to light it by touching the end to my monitor screen...
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KK7UE on March 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You're lucky...my monitor flat out melted after this thread. I did notice however, a slight snickering eminating from within it just before its death.......
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by KI4GYT on March 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One nice man said: "CW is always a nice way to know that you won't be dealing with SOME hams who got their license out of a Cracker Jack Box."
Alas, nice man, the original complaint was about misbehavior on 3840. If memory serves, the only souls operating there are Advanced and Extra class licensees... Did they all get their licenses out of a crackerjack box? Or is there some huge number of no-code techs suddenly deciding to illegally operate on that frequency?
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Yes you go glue a PO box shut"
This would not be possible if certain hams weren't so CS they HAD to use a PO box. Why are they hiding?
"as most can get you sued for just about all your good for..."
For recording amateur radio? You, my friend, are very mis-informed.
I am not "promoting voliance". Even if my suggestion were to be taken seriously, I hardly see the administration of a few drops of super glue to an inanimate object to be violence.
I guess the point you missed was that it seems that many, if not most, of the hams we complain about use PO Boxes for the address of their station. I think that if it were required to have a valid station location on our licenses there would be much less trouble.
Having a PO Box pretty much negates a call sign as far as behavior is concerned.
To me, using a PO Box is relegated to those with a CB mentality, ones that get thrills out of overpowering people with their radios.
I can see where this struck a nerve. So be it.
73,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N8GNI on March 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K8MHZ says
"To me, using a PO Box is relegated to those with a CB mentality, ones that get thrills out of overpowering people with their radios."
I use a PO Box, I don't have a mail box. The reason being that we live in the boonies and my mail box would be on the street, 400' from my house. Sometimes we are gone for a few days to a few weeks, summer months kids walk down the road and for kicks open mail boxs, Winter time, plows hit boxs and scatter mail in the ditchs. The FCC has my stations physical location.
I fail to see why having my mail sent to a PO Box regulates myself or anybody with a PO Box to your description of CB mentality? Have you in the past been a CB'er? I wouldn't know about the actions of CBer's as I've never used a CB and the ones I've heard in my area don't seem to fit your discription.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA6CDE on March 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K8MHZ on March 15, 2006 wrote
"Yes you go glue a PO box shut"
I am not "promoting voliance". Even if my suggestion were to be taken seriously, I hardly see the administration of a few drops of super glue to an inanimate object to be violence.
CLEARLY YOUR IDEA OF NON VOLIANCE IS NOT ON THE SAME LEVEL AS A SANE PERSON. LAST TIME I CHECKED DESTROYING GOVERMENT PROPERTY SUCH AS A PO BOX EVEN BY DROPPING A FEW DROPS OF GLUE IN... CONSTITUTES VANDILISM AND MIL MICHIF.. IF YOU CAN'T SEE THAT THEN I CAN SEE HOW YOUR IDEA OF SANITY IS A LITTLE WARPPED.
This would not be possible if certain hams weren't so CS they HAD to use a PO box. Why are they hiding?
...... WHO IS HIDING?... WE JUST DON'T LIKE IDOITS LIKE YOU DROPPING IN UNANNOUNCED THINKING THAT THEY ARE THE NEW LAW IN TOWN IF ITS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAPPEN TO DISAGREE WITH OR IF SOMEONE MADE A FOOL OUT OF YOU THAT YOU ARE ON THE AIR. FROM WHAT YOU WROTE YOU MIGHT THINK ITS YOUR RIGHT TO FLATTEN TIRES OR BREAK INTO THEIR HOUSE... OF WHICH THEN THEY WOULD ELIMINATE YOU FROM THE GENE POOL.. FOR ABOUT 25 CENTS WORTH OF LEAD... BUT HEY YOUR THE ONE THAT THINKS DAMAGING OTHERS PROPERTY IS OK TO DO... HUH... JUST A LITTLE SOMETHING SICK ABOUT THAT... YOU MIGHT WANT TO GO GET CHECKED IN... YOUR EXACTLY THE KIND OF PERSON I WAS RELATING TO IN THE LAST POSTING BY YOUR WAY OF THINKING.
"as most can get you sued for just about all your good for..."
For recording amateur radio? You, my friend, are very mis-informed.
NOPE... ASK THE GUYS WHO WERE ON WESTCARS... BILL STILL HASN'T RECOVERED FROM THAT EVENT THAT HAPPEND YEARS AGO. YOU CLEARLY NO NOT OF WHAT YOU SPEAK.
YOU MAKE A RECORDING OF ANYONE... AND BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONE THAT TURNS IT IN... YOU ARE THE THUMB ON THE HAND OF LIFE... ALL BY YOURSELF... AND SOMEHOW YOU DON'T THINK THAT OTHERS WON'T RESPOND AND RETALIATE...(DO YOU LIVE WITH ALICE AND THE CAT?) YOU SEND IT IN.. YOU WRITE THE LETTER YOU SIGN YOUR NAME TO IT AND ITS YOUR PROPERTY THAT IS ACCUSING OTHERS (RIGHT OR WRONG) AND THAT MY FRIEND LEAVES YOU OPEN TO THEM SUEING YOU FOR LIABLE AND SLANDER... YES THEY HAVE BEEN AND YES THEY HAVE LOST... BIG TIME. BUT YOU GO SENDING IT IN UNDERCOVER OF NO LETTER AND ITS WORTH ABOUT AS MUCH AS THE STAMP THAT YOU USED TO SEND IT WITH. SO IT FORCES YOU TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF... NOW THE FCC WILL TAKE YOUR SUBMISSION AND USE IT...YES.. BUT, IF THE OTHER PARTY THEN COMES AFTER YOU AND THE COMMISSION... THEY WILL BACK TRACK IT TO YOU... AND YOU SUDDENLY BECOME THE TARGET FROM BOTH SIDES... THEY ARE REACTING ON YOUR SUBMISSION... SO YOU AND YOU ALONE ARE THE INSTIGATOR AND SOLE RESPONDENT WHEN THE CRAP HITS THE FAN...
I guess the point you missed was that it seems that many, if not most, of the hams we complain about use PO Boxes for the address of their station. I think that if it were required to have a valid station location on our licenses there would be much less trouble.
Having a PO Box pretty much negates a call sign as far as behavior is concerned.
ACTUALLY I HAVE NOT HEARD MANY PEOPLE (HAMS) COMPALINING ABOUT HAMS HAVING P.O. BOXES... IS THEIR SOME REASON THAT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM.... COULD IT BE THAT YOU FEEL THAT... YOUR A PROBLEM... BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ONE.
To me, using a PO Box is relegated to those with a CB mentality, ones that get thrills out of overpowering people with their radios.
SORRY... I DON'T THINK (AS OTHERS HAVE WRTTEN ALSO) THAT YOUR IDEA OF THIS IS VALID... BUT AGAIN IT KEEPS PEOPLE LIKE YOU FROM HARRASSING OTHER HAMS WHO HAVE A OPINION CONTRARY TO YOURS... WITH YOUR THINKING THAT DESTROYING PROPERTY IS OK TO DO... LEADS ONE TO THINK THAT OWNING A PO BOX MIGHT JUST BE A BETTER WAY TO KEEP YOU AWAY FROM US... LEAST YOU ALSO SHOULD BE GLAD BECAUSE IT THEN KEEPS YOU FROM SUFFERING PAIN AND DEATH DUE TO YOUR WARPED SENSE OF WHAT IS RIGHT... WHEN YOU GO OUT AND DO YOUR MU VANDILISM HUH... USE THIS THOUGHT.. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT DONE TO YOU???.. AHHH NOW YOU GET THE POINT... SUDDENLY IT NOT FUN ANYMORE HUH...
I can see where this struck a nerve. So be it.
NAW I SLEPT GOOD LAST NIGHT... HOW ABOUT YOU ?? BET YOU KEEP A LIGHT ON ALL NIGHT...HUH...
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N8GNI,
I hope you know that my remark was not meant for the legitimate use of a PO Box. Perhaps I would have been more clear if I said 'hiding behind a PO box.'
You stated the FCC has your station's location. How so? Only a mailing address is required. As long as the FCC has a way of contacting you that is all they require.
It used to be a requirement that station location be listed. It seems that the requirement has been dropped.
Just look at the 'All Caps Guy's response to me. What do you think his excuse for using a PO Box is?
For those of you that refuse to use either the spell check or shut off the caps lock and can't seem to read more than half a sentence without wetting yourselves...the point of the WHOLE sentence was that the FCC cares more about someone ignoring them than they do about what goes on throughout the amateur bands.
"BET YOU KEEP A LIGHT ON ALL NIGHT...HUH..."
Just what was THAT supposed to mean?
Sorry, but that is the only part of the post I read. I don't read posts in all caps. It hurts my eye.
73,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N8GNI on March 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K8MHZ wrote
“For those of you that refuse to use either the spell check or shut off the caps lock and can't seem to read more than half a sentence without wetting yourselves...the point of the WHOLE sentence was that the FCC cares more about someone ignoring them than they do about what goes on throughout the amateur bands. “
I see I miss-spelled description, it was more like a typo. I wouldn't want to point out your miss-spelling or grammar errors.
Let me ask you a question mark. In your comment
“Or just go to their PO Box and glue the lock shut and start a flurry of complaints to the FCC. It will seem to them that they are being ignored and THAT is what really ticks the FCC off, not trashing the ham frequencies. “
Do you think if somebody couldn’t get their PO Box open, all their mail would go unanswered? Bills would go unpaid, all correspondence, not only the FCC’s, would go unanswered? The first thing I would do is walk up to the desk and ask the PostMaster for my mail. I’m also sure there would be a new lock installed that same day. Did you think your remark through or do you live in a fantasy world?
I’m also not hiding, Look in the phone book or just ask anybody in this small town and they’ll tell you where I’m at. Who can't seem to read half a sentence and wet themselves? When you point your finger, be a little more specific as to who you are throwing your remarks at. Can you answer the question, have you in the past been a CB'er? Did you have this “CB mentality” that you speak of?
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Harry,
For some reason you think my posts are target toward you. They are not.
"Do you think if somebody couldn’t get their PO Box open, all their mail would go unanswered?"
No kidding. To that effect I am surprised at the fact that people took this as a serious suggestion. I guess because I didn't put HI HI after it the humor was over their heads. Some people wouldn't know a sense of humor if it QRM'd their toaster HI HI.
As for spelling errors, it's the abundance of same that makes it rough to read some folk's posts. The spell check button is not asking too much, don't you think? If a word get's through spell check every now and then it can be expected. But having to digest the likes of VOLIANCE, VANDILISM AND MIL MICHIF.. Sorry, I think a little more time proofreading would go a long way to illustrate points of alleged sane thinking.
As far as being a CB'er, I have watched as the Citizen's Band changed from a decent licensed service in the 1960's to the gutter we find it in it's present state. Now to even listen to it is sickening. A few reprobates with illegal linears have taken possesion of the band and declared it their own. The radio you see in my picture may get turned on once a year to just make sure it works, or to show someone why they should not use one and instead pursue a ham ticket.
If you never had a CB radio, you aren't missing anything. But those that did and used them as they were intended have been done a grave injustice by the FCC for letting CB become the garbage dump that it is.
I feel that the degree of degradation was directly proportional to the lessening of requirements. I also think that we are seeing a certain amount of those same effects with ham radio.
Yes, while your reason for having a PO Box has nothing to do with masking your location, most of the hams that use them are doing just that. If you are true to your posts, having a requirement to list the location of a station intended to transmit on amateur bands would not bother you much. It's the ones that it would bother I have the issue with.
Why would the hams that do not list their location suddenly have a problem if they did? The vast majority of hams list their location and I have yet to see it be a problem. The bottom line is that if your address is available for all to see you will be much more likely to be accountable for your actions.
I understand that you are not hiding. I am not looking. If I were, and I had a good enough reason to, I would find you. This is not meant to be a threat. Not at all. I used to do what is called first party collections and finding people is one of the things I am good at. I have contracted my services in the past to a PI locating people to inform them of escheats. 90 percent of Americans can be located for free via the Internet. For 40 bucks the number jumps to nearly 100 percent, with only transients being immune to location. But most people just don't have such resources and that makes a PO Box a good hiding place.
Boiling all this down to one sentence: We would have fewer intentional interference problems if we were ALL required to have a valid physical address on our licenses.
73,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I forgot to answer the last question about CB mentality.
Actually, it eluded me. The trend to put the utmost importance on who could 'drop the hammer' the hardest started in the late 70s. That trend destroyed any decency left in CB radio at the time. Watts many kHz wide became some people's proof of manhood. It was at that point I left CB to the cretins. In the early 90's CB radios were getting very cheap to buy and an employee of mine and I got a couple of them for our service trucks. They worked OK but we had to put up with the the ruckus you can imagine. By 1994 both myself and my employee had our tickets. We started using our names instead of handles and speaking in plain English and it drove some CB'ers nuts! You would think not having a 'handle' was a Federal crime.
I still have a CB in my van. The only time it gets turned on is for driving down the Interstate. There you can have a decent QSO with the truckers, some having ham tickets. Many companies won't let truckers have their own radios in their trucks so sliding over to 2 meters isn't possible. If the trash band opens up, I just turn it off and look for a 2 meter repeater. The sad part is that the best traffic info is still on CB 19 live as it happens. We should not have to put up with illegal filth to take advantage of it.
Again, if you never had a CB radio, you aren't missing a thing. But many do have a history of proper CB operation and their enjoyment of their hobby has been crushed by lack of enforcement. And I some see some chilling parallels occuring in ham radio.
If we don't learn from history, it will repeat itself.
73,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA6CDE on March 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mark K8MHZ
Well mark if you paid more attention to the subject at hand than going off like a chicken with its head cut of... making statements that you want to do physical damage to others property... well...
Maybe you should calibrate your eyes... and read the rest of what was said... Your stupid or dumb ... you choose... when you think your way of thinking is the norm.... dudette you got a lot of balls to come on here and start making noise like you know what should be... and what others shouldn't .... quite frankly I think your about yeaa high to a grasshopper when it comes to who is more intelligent....
Ya why not throw the subject about your comments by claiming CAPS or spelling errors... like it has a lot to do with your threat about glueing some PO box closed...
You talk big dude... mr BMOTB... but, in reality you sound like a person who does sleep with the lights on at night... and from your own admission you now say that you can STALK AND TERRORIZE people whos sole reason for having a PO box may be just to keep trash people like you away from them...
Your point about the PO box is not taken lightly... matter of fact some of this should probably be given to the PO master in your home town just incase they ever do have one of the PO boxes glued shut becasue you think you methodes are just and ritious...
Hey people have their reasons for having them... and if you can't accept that ... well you know the rest of the saying... KOSH... They have their rights too... and neither you or what you say or do will be taken lightly when it comes to your pranks and wishful thinking of damaging property...
Now if you want to get back to the subject at hand ... then I suggest you get off your F*^% soap box and get back with the normal people... otherwise... your just another one of the fruitcakes thats elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor...
PEOPLE HAVE THEIR RIGHTS AND REASIONS TO HAVE AND USE A PO BOX... YOU MIGHT CONSIDER THEIR RIGHTS TO PRIVACY INSTEAD OF YOUR RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT THEM.
If you don't think that you want to talk to them on the radio because of the verbilization... then may I suggest you either spin the dial or use the OFF option .. that is what they put it on their for... hint hint...
Other wise after being called on the carpet for making a statement which you think it is funny to go glue someones mail box or PO box shut... and then think it was a joke without clairifying it at the time... ahhhh that doesn't fly dude... you were taken serious and you are now put into the classifcation of loose on deck...
Quite frankly I know I wouldn't want you around me... you might think it fun to do damage... a little sick hmmmm.... no matter if you did or didn't mean it.. how are we supposed to know... we take you on face value ... and to think your the one throwing the stones at people who like to use the PO box for rec'ng their mail
Gee who really is the threat here... clearly from what you wrote and contenue to profess.... I think your a little sick myself... I am not impressed... and as for spelling and caps... well again you know the rest of the saying... are you sure your middle initals are not
FE... Clearly you seem to have a complex ego that enlarges when you open your mouth and then write about it... What is your idea of fun anyway... seeing others below you??? Ya Sick dude...
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA6CDE on March 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mark K8MHZ
Actually Mark...
Your comments about the CB'ers and Others... on the ham bands... is another credit to your lack of understandings... (I just love it when you johnny come latelys' come on and have a cure all... (talk about fractured participls...) when in fact you don't know of what you speak of... but, hey if it strokes your id... well enjoy) if you got on the air and started this with them ... (on CB or ham) I can see how it would esclate into a war with them... as your antagniastic attitude and personal approch towards the subject kinda lacks in tack... and/or correct insite
Do you live in a traler or mobile home?? are you shure you don't... cauz you sure talk like you do... come on now admit it... you are a CB'er who is frustrated... because you got run off of the band... ouch...you have to go some too... (grin)
CB'ers have their place in the sun too... incase you have not noticed... (let me illuminate ya) So before you go calling all the truckers in this country... trash and skum of the earth... you might want to think on the subject of the REACT and RV'er that use the band for very constructive uses...
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"making statements that you want to do physical damage to others property"
Show me where I said that. That may be what you THINK but that is not what I wrote.
"and from your own admission you now say that you can STALK AND TERRORIZE people whos sole reason for having a PO box may be just to keep trash people like you away from them..."
My own admission? Where? If I wrote something like that let's see it. Dude, paranoia is a disease, please see a doctor.
"PO master in your home town just incase they ever do have one of the PO boxes glued shut becasue you think you methodes are just and ritious..."
If I translated that into English properly you can rest assured that the local postmaster is quite familiar with me. I use USPS quite often.
"then I suggest you get off your F*^% soap box and get back with the normal people..."
I shudder to think what your definition of normal is. Sorry, I will pass on your suggestion.
"Do you live in a traler or mobile home?? are you shure you don't... cauz you sure talk like you do..."
So, is this how a person that lives in a mansion talks? I live in a quad level home in UMCA. If you do an Earth.Google on my address you will see the house and my van parked in the drive. You will also see our neighbors pools and my kid's school if you like. Your point?
"as your antagniastic attitude and personal approch towards the subject kinda lacks in tack... and/or correct insite"
Brilliant! What a wordsmith! I am a changed man!
You are right, I will go down and have my address changed to a PO Box so I can write like you and talk like you and your normal friends.
Who is buying the beer?
73,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA6CDE on March 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K8MHZ states�
"making statements that you want to do physical damage to others property"
Show me where I said that. That may be what you THINK but that is not what I wrote.
��.K8MHZ on March 15, 2006 wrote,
"Yes you go glue a PO box shut"
Hmmmmm�. Your memory seems to be lacking too�
My own admission? (Fragment again , consider reversing) Where? If I wrote something like that let's see it.
Ok� here is what you wrote�..
I understand that you are not hiding. I am not looking. If I were, and I had a good enough reason to, I would find you. This is not meant to be a threat. Not at all.(fragment here dude)
I used to do what is called first party collections and finding people is one of the things I am good at. I have contracted my services in the past to a PI locating people to inform them of escheats. 90 percent of Americans can be located for free via the Internet. For 40 bucks the number jumps to nearly 100 percent, with only transients being immune to location. But most people just don't have such resources and that makes a PO Box a good hiding place.
you can rest assured that the local postmaster is quite familiar with me. I use USPS quite often.
So you are in trouble with the USPS�. Could it be because you go gluing peoples boxes shut� speaking about seeing a doctor� ahhhh ya� with your brand of justice one begins to wonder� hmmmm�
Man not only that but, your grammar is really getting hard to understand� grin�
Ahhhh so your buying� now that we have illuminated ya� grin�
Gota go now� tata tahhh�.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Yes you go glue a PO box shut" was actually your words from March 12th.
If this is what I am to try to have a debate with all I can say is thanks to Billy the Bill Collector for for tossing out the bait.
Since you now have started talking to yourself you can go ahead and finish the debate with yourself.
I may talk like I live in a trailer but you talk like you live in an apartment with a parking lot and a divided boulevard in front of your place.
HI HI,
You never answered me...who is buying the beer??
73,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA6CDE on March 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K8mhz.... you wish you had a place like mine.... keep dreaming dude.. your illusions of grandure from that outhouse are really supporting you on welfare... keeps you warm a fuzzy feeing I'll bet... (notice you said the neighbors had the pool... not you.. Hmmmmm but hey you have a van... and we all know about them perverted people who have vans and what goes on in them... ops.... )
As to words... yes you did say that... and you went on to say even more...
I hope you know that my remark was not meant for the legitimate use of a PO Box. (sic)
So dudette thems... your words you wrote not mine...
Clearly you can't read very well either... as I said your buying... but, I'll wait till after the first of the month when you get your welfare check from the goverment... that way you won't be so broke the rest of the week...
By the way... is it also true that you told your girlfriend ... that... you didn't want to be a vegatable kept alive by a electronic device and fed by a bottle... and if it came to that you wanted her to pull the plug take the dog and leave ???...
... so she went over to the couch where you were relaxing... took your beer away from you... unpluged the TV and left???....
ya your buying... grin...
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on March 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Of all people to write this it's N6AYJ - one of the biggest shit disturbers and jerks on 75 meters. Haha what a joke!
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CDE:
It looks like you can't figure out how to use Google Earth.
Why don't you get one of your many friends to help you? Because you would rather spew your baloney about trailers and welfare than spend 5 minutes looking for the truth. It shows.
You cut and paste your own words and it seems you actually think they are someone elses.
And then there is this little gem:
"By the way... is it also true that you told your girlfriend ... that... you didn't want to be a vegatable kept alive by a electronic device and fed by a bottle... and if it came to that you wanted her to pull the plug take the dog and leave ???..."
After those rantings it will take a miracle to convince me that you have even the tiniest grip on reality. It seems you tried Google and ended up at Yahoo. I am not REALLY 147 years old my friend. You can put any age you want in your profile.
I think I have put enough into re-paying AJY for his contribution to ham radio, that 11,000 word tirade telling W. Riley Hollingsworth where to stick it. We not may agree with his approach, but there is something to learn by reading it and following up on the FCC's response.
It illustrates the daunting task Mr. Hollingsworth is charged with. If someone can write a letter like AYJ's to the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau and slither away unscathed where is their power? It also proves that the OOs have no legal stand as only FCC agents do. I find it disconcerting that the FCC includes any private organization in it's enforcement process. Obviously the courts don't think much of it either.
Mr. Amthor, I will leave you with this. It has been fun. The mental picture I get of you at your keyboard has been worth every minute of my time.
I would, however, like to leave you with this. Your remarks about welfare and trailers illustrates a bit of...hatred?...toward those with diminished means.
Who was it that said "The way you treat the least of my brethren is the way you treat me." ? Just what was meant by that?
At first I pointedly felt that the above passage would serve only you. But after some introspect I see that I should heed it as well.
So my friend, I will have to wish you the best and leave you in peace. Indeed, if we meet somewhere and there are two cold beers nearby, I am buying.
73,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA6CDE on March 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mark K8MHZ
wow... do you really believe that... hmmmm as I said... all you have to do is read back up the thread... and oh wow.. their you are making your damaging glue statement... bet you forgot about that huh... its all on the thread at eham...
As to going and looking up your ... what ever.. lies you have posted... ahhhhh.. sorry.. you must have thought that I was conserned and interested in who you are... not in the slightest... from what you have written... ahhhh could care less... after all this is a hobby... and to consider it anything more... is a joke
So if you want a medal for your accomplshments... you will first have to go get a chest so it will have something to be pinned to... or we could go get a tube of that wonder glue and stick it to your forhead... heaven knows how big that is... I am sure it has lots of room for all kinds of banners, etc... of course it will have to be a living glue due to the expanding size...hmmmmm... (kinda invision a big head sitting on a little stick ducks bod... sort of like humpty dumpty)
Clearly... you suffer from dementa and can't distingush between right and wrong, what you wrote and what other have and now claim a 11,000 word tirade telling RH where to stick it... Like I am sure he really waisted his time reading past the first paragraph... did you do it all in CAPS too... (grin)
Somewhere you must think that were conserned... well the only consern that seems to surface here is the fact that you clearly are out playing with alice and the cat... again (smile)
Hey have a nice day... remember what that other person suggested to you... personal hygine is a item that can be offensive if you are not taken care of... so make sure you check your diapers at least 5 or 6 times a day... Lord knows when you get your age how constanance is in you old people... a puddle here... a puddle their... a puddle every where you stop... and sleep for a hour....
We know where you have been by the stinking puddles you leave..... are we having fun yet.....
Go in peace ... I'll by the second round... (don't want you to run short)
73's -30-
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WB4TGT on March 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
ke6irp you r right. how come we didnt see that happing 20 yrs ago. or did we/.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Jim, I respectfully disagree. Title 47 of the U.S. Code, Section 154, paragraph (B), provides that such evidence must be provided by either a Commission employee or an OO. The Commission can't use evidence collected by us ordinary mortals."
On the FCC web site Title 47 only goes up to Section 101. I could not find Section 154.
Still looking, but I would appreciate knowing where you found Section 154.
Thanks,
K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I found the following buried in the FCC's web site.
Why it is not listed in the table of contents is odd.
Anyway, here is Section 154. No mention of OO's, and you may be surprised to see just who the FCC feels they can use to collect information.
From the FCC website:
(B)(i) The Commission, for purposes of monitoring violations of any provision of this chapter (and of any regulation prescribed by the Commission under this chapter) relating to the amateur radio service, may--
(I) recruit and train any individual licensed by the Commission to operate an amateur station; and
(II) accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of such individual.
(ii) The Commission, for purposes of recruiting and training individuals under clause (i) and for purposes of screening, annotating, and summarizing violation reports referred under clause (i), may accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of any amateur station operator organization.
(iii) The functions of individuals recruited and trained under this subparagraph shall be limited to--
(I) the detection of improper amateur radio transmissions;
(II) the conveyance to Commission personnel of information which is essential to the enforcement of this chapter (or regulations prescribed by the Commission under this chapter) relating to the amateur radio service; and
(III) issuing advisory notices, under the general direction of the Commission, to persons who apparently have violated any provision of this chapter (or regulations prescribed by the Commission under this chapter) relating to the amateur radio service.
Nothing in this clause shall be construed to grant individuals recruited and trained under this subparagraph any authority to issue sanctions to violators or to take any enforcement action other than any action which the Commission may prescribe by rule.
(C)(i) The Commission, for purposes of monitoring violations of any provision of this chapter (and of any regulation prescribed by the Commission under this chapter) relating to the citizens band radio service, may--
(I) recruit and train any citizens band radio operator; and
(II) accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of such operator.
(ii) The Commission, for purposes of recruiting and training individuals under clause (i) and for purposes of screening, annotating, and summarizing violation reports referred under clause (i), may accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of any citizens band radio operator organization. The Commission, in accepting and employing services of individuals under this subparagraph, shall seek to achieve a broad representation of individuals and organizations interested in citizens band radio operation.
(iii) The functions of individuals recruited and trained under this subparagraph shall be limited to--
(I) the detection of improper citizens band radio transmissions;
(II) the conveyance to Commission personnel of information which is essential to the enforcement of this chapter (or regulations prescribed by the Commission under this chapter) relating to the citizens band radio service; and
(III) issuing advisory notices, under the general direction of the Commission, to persons who apparently have violated any provision of this chapter (or regulations prescribed by the Commission under this chapter) relating to the citizens band radio service.
Nothing in this clause shall be construed to grant individuals recruited and trained under this subparagraph any authority to issue sanctions to violators or to take any enforcement action other than any action which the Commission may prescribe by rule.
73,
K8MHZ
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by AA3EJ on March 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
That's why the I joined the elite QRP CW league years ago! Hung up the microphone and accepted the challange of low power CW operation. What a fantastic breed of professional operators..try CW, you will like the mode and operator courtesy..-Dave, AA3EJ/QRP
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Dave,
My kid and I passed our CW tests last year. I think it is one of the best skills I posess but have not had any QSO's with anyone other than a local friend of mine.
It's weird. I find making a contact with someone I don't know to be intimidating. I don't scare easily, I work on high voltage and high temperature devices for a living, so I find that to be an idiosyncrasy.
Looking for an answer, I determined that my fear is based on the fact that I send much slower than I think and I get lost. Copying does not bear that consequence, as I have a written record in front of me.
I have tried writing before I send but sometimes that makes a slow QSO even slower and I would rather not torture the other op any more than I have to ;)
Fortunately, practicing CW doesn't require a radio. Me and my kid do it any way we can. Some times we just speak the dahs and the dits. Kid's like 'secret' codes so she thinks CW is great.
But, I am a tenacious sort. You just may hear my call sometime in the future.
73,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA6CDE on March 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K8MHZ...
Did you read the disertation of the gent way up above... in his reply to RH... I think he also covered the items that you listed...
Naw... the phone bands are about to change again anyway... as digital is coming in... their you will be able to us the selective call mode where you will not hear anyone but the ones you want... but,
I think the reason for CW ... least for me.. is that its a challenge... to keep up with it... like any other skill it take practice even after you attain the level you float to in speed...
Getting on and talking to new people is half of the equasion for the fun of it... the other half is the challenge and practice of skills... such as CW.
All to often them people head over to the computer and let it do the work for 'em... and while its acceptable for use in sending its not really challenging to have the macheen do the work for you... and thus keeps you mentally aware and exercised...
Where you get into these jokeres having a bad day and all is when they went out and spent all that money for ham gear.. got it home... plugged it in... and it turned out not to be what they expected... so they got booreddd... with it and go looking to either impress someone with their purchase and equipment or think its fun to get on and cause others to have problems... either way it seems they are looking for reconigition...
It used to be when hams made their own equipment... half of the conversation was directed to the building and testing of equipment... today... well... its plug and play... which is really too bad... as these guys and gals are missing half the fun... Now they want to do away with the CW portion... so that more of the frustrated people can get on... and get busy being reconized... (ya some actually will use ham radio for good uses also... but, what 1 out of 1000)
That is my take on it...
Green beer tonight at the bar...
G.M>
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WB8NUT on March 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What censorship? I've never been told by the FCC what to say or what not to say.
Maybe you are referring to the fines the FCC issued for the filth being broadcast on the over-the-air broadcast stations.
But then again, if you are against that, how can you be against the cussing, music, etc. being broadcast by some idiot hams? Wouldn't that be censorship?
Over-the-air television, radio and a few hams need to clean up their acts. It's not censorship, it's common decency and respect.
|
| |
|
Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by AB7JK on March 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not so fast! Bad OPs are showing up on digital with high power transmitters overwhelming adjacent frequencies.
Seems the LIDs are taking over most of the modes except CW. I don't have much hope for the future. AB7JK
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
GM
Just because I'm Irish and it's St. Paddy's Day I will give you this. I think you will like it.
I shoot semi-pro photography (I get paid to do weddings which makes me a pro, but I don't do enough of them to quit my day job as an electrician, which demotes me to semi-pro) and I decided that I wanted my own pictures on my own QSL cards. I made several different varieties using PhotoShop and a really neat logo text generator. As I admired my work, I looked at my ham gear, basically an Icom-735 and a Swan 350. I couldn't help think to myself....ya know, it wasn't too long ago that hams made their own radios, and bought their QSL cards from a business. Now we make our own QSL cards and buy our radios from businesses!
Don't fret the demise of CW. It ain't going nowhere. The space program still uses CW to ID it's stuff. Why? Because it works and over time has proven to be the best bang for the buck. Remember, all space stuff will meet a firey end and everything inside will eventually be destroyed. Wasting the gear to send a CW ID vs. the same gear to send any other form of info costs less.
Add to that, CW is fun, even for a greenhorn like me. It has a great history. Pity that the push to eliminate the requirement of CW has somehow equated to it's demise. I, for one, think that CW should be an Extra only requirement, but bumped up to at least 13 wpm. But, you will find as many opinions about CW requirements as there are call signs. Whatever the FCC decides to require, CW will live on for at least a few more generations. Just look at quilting!
Most hams I know, even the 'plug and play' you speak of are curious sorts. They still like to build antennas. But things change. I look in my Swan and think 'Yeah, I could build one of these things', and look in the Icom and think 'How the hell am I supposed to even SEE this stuff, let alone fix it or build one???'
The Swan kicks the Icom's butt, though, I will have to proudly say. Antenna only 20 feet off the ground? JA station calling CQ? No chance with the Icom, first try with the Swan. The proof is in the pudding.
I can see where today's ham would have no reason to try to build a transceiver.
I do need to know one thing. How can you drink GREEN BEER? Yuk! There is one thing the Irish can't do. It's make good beer. The Germans and the Canadians prevail. I'm not much fond of their food, either. Cripe, when you think about it, I hate Irish beer, Irish food and I get sunburned easily, have a short temper and am related to cops.
I guess it shows that I'm only half Irish!
73 on St. Paddy's Day,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB8NUT
Censorship is being told what you can't talk about. The FCC does not dictate what you can talk about in the US. Not counting 3rd party traffic, that is.
Legislation can and should dictate HOW you can talk about anything you want.
As far as radio, which includes TV, is concerned, the relaxation of the rules has irritated many to accomodate a few.
The FCC used to be a force to be reckoned with. Now they are subject to the hand tying of bureaucrasy and the denuding results of 'less government'. How effective to you expect them to be under the current circumstances?
Only the press suffers from government censorship. Do a search on 'Margie Shoedinger' and tell me why her lawsuit wasn't news? Our Constitution never guaranteed the media freedom of speech. That freedom is only reserved for individuals. I can tell you about Mrs. Shoedinger, her story is among many personal web sites on the Internet, but the media has been forbidden to publish it, so it seems.
Even at it's acme, the FCC never made any requirements that I felt were unreasonable or improper. Indeed, I felt that the FCC requirements were a minimum. A minimum standard that was not too hard to meet or exceed.
To it's defense, the FCC has been effective in the two cases that I have been personally involved with. They did so without assertion of force and even though one case took quite some time to resolve, it was still resolved. The cases were quite different, one with the ham as the violator and one with the ham as the complaintant. In neither case was the ARRL or an OO involved. There were things that could have been better, but I was impressed by W. Riley Hollingsworth's personal involvement in the cases. He could have been a very successful salesman.
I agree, the FCC is not in the business of censorship. To accuse them of that and then to listen to what is going on with 11 meters makes no sense at all. Howard Stern has nothing on 'Rimshot' and '285'. I don't think Howard ever threatened anyone's life over an unpaid debt on the radio. I also don't think that porno mags have near the foul language that I have heard on 11 meters. To rip these cretins off the air is NOT censorship. Far from it.
73,
de K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by WA6CDE on March 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mark mhz...
Ya I have to agreee... no taste to it... yuck... almost reminded me of that A1 beer that we had in VN... ranked right up their with Lucky L... beer... and I am sure both of them have gone out to pasture by now... least they should have...
I have never understood... why the irish like green things and yet like red headed women... that beat them up... hmmmm... is it something about the color or what... grin...
Anyway... they dance funny and have strange music... but, it is entertaining...
Unlike our picking on blonds in this country... here is a example...
Texans are very smart......
Texans are very smart. Amy, a blonde Texan City girl, marries a Texas rancher.
One morning, on his way out to check on the cows the rancher says to Amy: "The artificial insemination man is coming over to impregnate one of our cows today. I drove a nail into the two-by-four just above the cow's stall in the barn. You show him where the cow is when he gets here, okay?"?? So the rancher leaves for the fields.
After a while, the artificial insemination man arrives and knocks on the front door. Amy takes him down the barn. They walk along a long row of cows and when she sees the nail, she tells him: "This is the one.....
right here."
Terribly impressed by what he seemed to think just might be another ditzy blonde, the man asks, "Tell me little lady, how did you know this is the cow to be bred?"
"That's simple. By the nail over its stall," Amy explains very confidently.
Then the man asks, "What's the nail for?"
She turns to walk away, and with complete confidence, says: "I guess it's to hang your pants on....."
ahhhh you know what they say about them people down in texas... like on the movie officer and a gentlemen... hmmmm....
anyway... the irish tonight has their day in the sun... as the party is still going on... and actually the best part was the corn beef and cabbage... although the corn beef worked good between two pieces of dark rye bread (german) and along with a couple slices of good old swiss cheese ... a little sour kruat (again german) and a little good old american thousand island dressing... ahhhh the americanized version... of a Rubin sandwich... now thats Irish... improvision for ya... taking the best of both worlds... and making it better...
Yes CW will contenue on and while the nay sayers think its going away... it appears from all retrospect that it actually is growning as the new hams are beginging to have some fun building things.. like QRP transmitters etc... The NorCal group... fists and others are claiming a alarming rate of increase in memberships...
Then again... as you looked at your swan... now you look at what can be built... and these transmitters are cheaper, easier and use less parts than the days of old tubes... and much more efficent also... as one can take a solar cell up in their back pack.. and run the radio for hours while getting tan on the rocks... couldn't do that with the old tube stuff... unless you had bubba with you to carry the gen set... So todays hams have the best of the best ... and all they have to do is start using it...
hey on the same note... who has the right to dictate to the other... thus I am sure the FCC is not going to get into a pickle... matter of fact as the goverment is going... they are contracting out everything... they claim it saves 'em money... but, hey why not contract out congress and the president... and really save a bundle... just think... if the contractor didn't do what we liked... we could just fire 'em... boy that would show 'em... who is boss... huh...
And as if we didn't need another epidimic going around... with fire ants... bird flu.. mad cow.. etc...
get a load of what the ag people are saying...
WARNING
If you buy mulch this spring and summer, make sure you know where it came from.
If you use mulch around your house be very careful about buying mulch this year. After the Hurricane in New Orleans many trees were blown over. These trees were then turned into mulch and the state is trying to get rid of tons and tons of this mulch to any state or
company who will come and haul it away. So it will be showing up in Home Depot and Lowes at dirt cheap prices with one huge problem;
Formosan Termites will be the bonus in many of those bags. New Orleans is one of the few areas in the country where the Formosan Termites has gotten a stronghold and most of the trees blown down were already badly infested with those termites. Now we may have the worst case of transporting a problem to all parts of the country
that we have ever had. These termites can eat a house in no time at all and there apparently is no good control against them, so tell your friends that own homes to avoid cheap mulch and know were it came from.
Shortcut to: http://www.agctr.lsu.edu/termites/
Nothing like the goverment knowing whats going on and leading the contry into greatness... while protecting us all... sort of like how they directed the FCC to ignore CB and not go enforce it... their resolution... cut off the money... just ignore it and maybe it will go away... Oh well... can you imagine the terrorist using it for commucations... ahhhh that will take a army to monitor all the channels... like they ever thought of it... Lucky the truckers are on our side... and knowing how american they are... wouldn't wait for the feds to do something...
Yep when I got home tonight... I had to hit the refrig... for a good old bud... wonder if all that green stuff is going to come out... Naw... it does doesn't it.... I mean like ... oh well... if not talk about a disgusting item... ouch... I think I will get some green food coloring and pour a little in the toilet tank... and watch the other half start freting... later tonight when I mention it too... grin... Hee hee...
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The termite thing is a hoax.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/termites.asp
Terrorists on CB? I doubt it. The way they have been found to communicate is very shrewd. I doubt they would be stupid enough to use CB.
Here is the way they have been found to communicate. Try it sometime.
Open up a Hotmail account. Type a message and don't send it. Leave it in the Outbox. Now all you have to do is give the intended recipient the username and password to the Hotmail account (or vice versa if you are a REAL spy). The intended recipient just goes to any computer connected to the Internet and reads the message that is in the Outbox. No message ever sent, only one apparent user, masked by obscurity and encryption and best of all, FREE!
Green beer and red hair. Pretty funny!
I always wondered why sauerkraut, swiss cheese, Bavarian Rye and bagpipes were considered to be Irish.
REAL Irish food is not for those with weak constitutions. Such as, stuffed cow hearts, tripe with onions, and cruibins made from pig feet.
I guess food like that is needed to make the Killian's drinkable.
Q: Do you know the difference between roadkill and bagpipes?
A: Some roadkill has skidmarks in front of it.
73 de K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices FedEx is FedUp
|
|
|
by WA6CDE on March 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
MHZ...Dave...
boy talk about people who squeek when they walk... did you see this on the FedEx people... who appearently haven't got a sense of humor or idea of promotion... it was on the news tonight... and it seems that FedEx is FEDUp...
http://fedexfurniture.com/
and you thought it was just limited to hams... wow... this guy is a real engineer... he takes garbage and turns it into useful stuff... what a deal... of course FedEx being the stick in the mud that they usually are... and losing peoples packages... is threatening this guy for his web site and telling others how to....
check it out... although I don't think the couch and bed are what I would call Ritz class... grin... but, it is funny...
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices FedEx is FedUp
|
|
|
by WA6CDE on March 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Talk about a ham station on/in a box... this guys whole room is made up of boxes.. including his desk for working and commucating... grin... http://fedexfurniture.com/
gives a whole new meaning to the words... boxed and ready to ship out... grin... only in america and at college can you find such ambitions...
|
| |
|
RE: USC 154
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on March 23, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is USC 154
Nowhere are OO's mentioned. The ARRL is not even mentioned.
Remember, the ARRL is a club. It has NO business in law enforcement. The myth that OO's are part of FCC regulation is one that should be dispelled ASAP
Here it is:
United State Code
TITLE 47 - TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS
CHAPTER 5 - WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION
SUBCHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Code as of: 01/26/1998
Sec. 154. Federal Communications Commission
(a) Number of commissioners; appointment
The Federal Communications Commission (in this chapter referred
to as the ''Commission'') shall be composed of five commissioners
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, one of whom the President shall designate as chairman.
(b) Qualifications
(1) Each member of the Commission shall be a citizen of the
United States.
(2)(A) No member of the Commission or person employed by the
Commission shall -
(i) be financially interested in any company or other entity
engaged in the manufacture or sale of telecommunications
equipment which is subject to regulation by the Commission;
(ii) be financially interested in any company or other entity
engaged in the business of communication by wire or radio or in
the use of the electromagnetic spectrum;
(iii) be financially interested in any company or other entity
which controls any company or other entity specified in clause
(i) or clause (ii), or which derives a significant portion of its
total income from ownership of stocks, bonds, or other securities
of any such company or other entity; or
(iv) be employed by, hold any official relation to, or own any
stocks, bonds, or other securities of, any person significantly
regulated by the Commission under this chapter;
except that the prohibitions established in this subparagraph shall
apply only to financial interests in any company or other entity
which has a significant interest in communications, manufacturing,
or sales activities which are subject to regulation by the
Commission.
(B)(i) The Commission shall have authority to waive, from time to
time, the application of the prohibitions established in
subparagraph (A) to persons employed by the Commission if the
Commission determines that the financial interests of a person
which are involved in a particular case are minimal, except that
such waiver authority shall be subject to the provisions of section
208 of title 18. The waiver authority established in this
subparagraph shall not apply with respect to members of the
Commission.
(ii) In any case in which the Commission exercises the waiver
authority established in this subparagraph, the Commission shall
publish notice of such action in the Federal Register and shall
furnish notice of such action to the appropriate committees of each
House of the Congress. Each such notice shall include information
regarding the identity of the person receiving the waiver, the
position held by such person, and the nature of the financial
interests which are the subject of the waiver.
(3) The Commission, in determining whether a company or other
entity has a significant interest in communications, manufacturing,
or sales activities which are subject to regulation by the
Commission, shall consider (without excluding other relevant
factors) -
(A) the revenues, investments, profits, and managerial efforts
directed to the related communications, manufacturing, or sales
activities of the company or other entity involved, as compared
to the other aspects of the business of such company or other
entity;
(B) the extent to which the Commission regulates and oversees
the activities of such company or other entity;
(C) the degree to which the economic interests of such company
or other entity may be affected by any action of the Commission;
and
(D) the perceptions held by the public regarding the business
activities of such company or other entity.
(4) Members of the Commission shall not engage in any other
business, vocation, profession, or employment while serving as such
members.
(5) The maximum number of commissioners who may be members of the
same political party shall be a number equal to the least number of
commissioners which constitutes a majority of the full membership
of the Commission.
(c) Terms of office; vacancies
commissioners (FOOTNOTE 1) shall be appointed for terms of five
years and until their successors are appointed and have been
confirmed and taken the oath of office, except that they shall not
continue to serve beyond the expiration of the next session of
Congress subsequent to the expiration of said fixed term of office;
except that any person chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed
only for the unexpired term of the commissioner whom he succeeds.
No vacancy in the Commission shall impair the right of the
remaining commissioners to exercise all the powers of the
Commission.
(FOOTNOTE 1) So in original. Probably should be capitalized.
(d) Compensation of Commission members
Each Commissioner shall receive an annual salary at the annual
rate payable from time to time for level IV of the Executive
Schedule, payable in monthly installments. The Chairman of the
Commission, during the period of his service as Chairman, shall
receive an annual salary at the annual rate payable from time to
time for level III of the Executive Schedule.
(e) Principal office; special sessions
The principal office of the Commission shall be in the District
of Columbia, where its general sessions shall be held; but whenever
the convenience of the public or of the parties may be promoted or
delay or expense prevented thereby, the Commission may hold special
sessions in any part of the United States.
(f) Employees and assistants; compensation of members of Field
Engineering and Monitoring Bureau; use of amateur volunteers
for certain purposes; commercial radio operator examinations
(1) The Commission shall have authority, subject to the
provisions of the civil-service laws and chapter 51 and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of title 5, to appoint such officers, engineers,
accountants, attorneys, inspectors, examiners, and other employees
as are necessary in the exercise of its functions.
(2) Without regard to the civil-service laws, but subject to
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, each
commissioner may appoint three professional assistants and a
secretary, each of whom shall perform such duties as such
commissioner shall direct. In addition, the chairman of the
Commission may appoint, without regard to the civil-service laws,
but subject to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title
5, and administrative assistant who shall perform such duties as
the chairman shall direct.
(3) The Commission shall fix a reasonable rate of extra
compensation for overtime services of engineers in charge and radio
engineers of the Field Engineering and Monitoring Bureau of the
Federal Communications Commission, who may be required to remain on
duty between the hours of 5 o'clock postmeridian and 8 o'clock
antemeridian or on Sundays or holidays to perform services in
connection with the inspection of ship radio equipment and
apparatus for the purposes of part II of subchapter III of this
chapter or the Great Lakes Agreement, on the basis of one-half
day's additional pay for each two hours or fraction thereof of at
least one hour that the overtime extends beyond 5 o'clock
postmeridian (but not to exceed two and one-half days' pay for the
full period from 5 o'clock postmeridian to 8 o'clock antemeridian)
and two additional days' pay for Sunday or holiday duty. The said
extra compensation for overtime services shall be paid by the
master, owner, or agent of such vessel to the local United States
collector of customs or his representative, who shall deposit such
collection into the Treasury of the United States to an
appropriately designated receipt account: Provided, That the
amounts of such collections received by the said collector of
customs or his representatives shall be covered into the Treasury
as miscellaneous receipts; and the payments of such extra
compensation to the several employees entitled thereto shall be
made from the annual appropriations for salaries and expenses of
the Commission: Provided further, That to the extent that the
annual appropriations which are authorized to be made from the
general fund of the Treasury are insufficient, there are authorized
to be appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury such
additional amounts as may be necessary to the extent that the
amounts of such receipts are in excess of the amounts appropriated:
Provided further, That such extra compensation shall be paid if
such field employees have been ordered to report for duty and have
so reported whether the actual inspection of the radio equipment or
apparatus takes place or not: And provided further, That in those
ports where customary working hours are other than those
hereinabove mentioned, the engineers in charge are vested with
authority to regulate the hours of such employees so as to agree
with prevailing working hours in said ports where inspections are
to be made, but nothing contained in this proviso shall be
construed in any manner to alter the length of a working day for
the engineers in charge and radio engineers or the overtime pay
herein fixed: and Provided further, That, in the alternative, an
entity designated by the Commission may make the inspections
referred to in this paragraph.
(4)(A) The Commission, for purposes of preparing or administering
any examination for an amateur station operator license, may accept
and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of any
individual who holds an amateur station operator license of a
higher class than the class of license for which the examination is
being prepared or administered. In the case of examinations for
the highest class of amateur station operator license, the
Commission may accept and employ such services of any individual
who holds such class of license.
(B)(i) The Commission, for purposes of monitoring violations of
any provision of this chapter (and of any regulation prescribed by
the Commission under this chapter) relating to the amateur radio
service, may -
(I) recruit and train any individual licensed by the Commission
to operate an amateur station; and
(II) accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services
of such individual.
(ii) The Commission, for purposes of recruiting and training
individuals under clause (i) and for purposes of screening,
annotating, and summarizing violation reports referred under clause
(i), may accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services
of any amateur station operator organization.
(iii) The functions of individuals recruited and trained under
this subparagraph shall be limited to -
(I) the detection of improper amateur radio transmissions;
(II) the conveyance to Commission personnel of information
which is essential to the enforcement of this chapter (or
regulations prescribed by the Commission under this chapter)
relating to the amateur radio service; and
(III) issuing advisory notices, under the general direction of
the Commission, to persons who apparently have violated any
provision of this chapter (or regulations prescribed by the
Commission under this chapter) relating to the amateur radio
service.
Nothing in this clause shall be construed to grant individuals
recruited and trained under this subparagraph any authority to
issue sanctions to violators or to take any enforcement action
other than any action which the Commission may prescribe by rule.
(C)(i) The Commission, for purposes of monitoring violations of
any provision of this chapter (and of any regulation prescribed by
the Commission under this chapter) relating to the citizens band
radio service, may -
(I) recruit and train any citizens band radio operator; and
(II) accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services
of such operator.
(ii) The Commission, for purposes of recruiting and training
individuals under clause (i) and for purposes of screening,
annotating, and summarizing violation reports referred under clause
(i), may accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services
of any citizens band radio operator organization. The Commission,
in accepting and employing services of individuals under this
subparagraph, shall seek to achieve a broad representation of
individuals and organizations interested in citizens band radio
operation.
(iii) The functions of individuals recruited and trained under
this subparagraph shall be limited to -
(I) the detection of improper citizens band radio
transmissions;
(II) the conveyance to Commission personnel of information
which is essential to the enforcement of this chapter (or
regulations prescribed by the Commission under this chapter)
relating to the citizens band radio service; and
(III) issuing advisory notices, under the general direction of
the Commission, to persons who apparently have violated any
provision of this chapter (or regulations prescribed by the
Commission under this chapter) relating to the citizens band
radio service.
Nothing in this clause shall be construed to grant individuals
recruited and trained under this subparagraph any authority to
issue sanctions to violators or to take any enforcement action
other than any action which the Commission may prescribe by rule.
(D) The Commission shall have the authority to endorse
certification of individuals to perform transmitter installation,
operation, maintenance, and repair duties in the private land
mobile services and fixed services (as defined by the Commission by
rule) if such certification programs are conducted by organizations
or committees which are representative of the users in those
services and which consist of individuals who are not officers or
employees of the Federal Government.
(E) The authority of the Commission established in this paragraph
shall not be subject to or affected by the provisions of part III
of title 5 or section 1342 of title 31.
(F) Any person who provides services under this paragraph shall
not be considered, by reason of having provided such services, a
Federal employee.
(G) The Commission, in accepting and employing services of
individuals under subparagraphs (A) and (B), shall seek to achieve
a broad representation of individuals and organizations interested
in amateur station operation.
(H) The Commission may establish rules of conduct and other
regulations governing the service of individuals under this
paragraph.
(I) With respect to the acceptance of voluntary uncompensated
services for the preparation, processing, or administration of
examinations for amateur station operator licenses pursuant to
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, individuals, or organizations
which provide or coordinate such authorized volunteer services may
recover from examinees reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs.
(5)(A) The Commission, for purposes of preparing and
administering any examination for a commercial radio operator
license or endorsement, may accept and employ the services of
persons that the Commission determines to be qualified. Any person
so employed may not receive compensation for such services, but may
recover from examinees such fees as the Commission permits,
considering such factors as public service and cost estimates
submitted by such person.
(B) The Commission may prescribe regulations to select, oversee,
sanction, and dismiss any person authorized under this paragraph to
be employed by the Commission.
(C) Any person who provides services under this paragraph or who
provides goods in connection with such services shall not, by
reason of having provided such service or goods, be considered a
Federal or special government employee.
(g) Expenditures
(1) The Commission may make such expenditures (including
expenditures for rent and personal services at the seat of
government and elsewhere, for office supplies, law books,
periodicals, and books of reference, for printing and binding, for
land for use as sites for radio monitoring stations and related
facilities, including living quarters where necessary in remote
areas, for the construction of such stations and facilities, and
for the improvement, furnishing, equipping, and repairing of such
stations and facilities and of laboratories and other related
facilities (including construction of minor subsidiary buildings
and structures not exceeding $25,000 in any one instance) used in
connection with technical research activities), as may be necessary
for the execution of the functions vested in the Commission and as
may be appropriated for by the Congress in accordance with the
authorizations of appropriations established in section 156 of this
title. All expenditures of the Commission, including all necessary
expenses for transportation incurred by the commissioners or by
their employees, under their orders, in making any investigation or
upon any official business in any other places than in the city of
Washington, shall be allowed and paid on the presentation of
itemized vouchers therefor approved by the chairman of the
Commission or by such other member or officer thereof as may be
designated by the Commission for that purpose.
(2)(A) If -
(i) the necessary expenses specified in the last sentence of
paragraph (1) have been incurred for the purpose of enabling
commissioners or employees of the Commission to attend and
participate in any convention, conference, or meeting;
(ii) such attendance and participation are in furtherance of
the functions of the Commission; and
(iii) such attendance and participation are requested by the
person sponsoring such convention, conference, or meeting;
then the Commission shall have authority to accept direct
reimbursement from such sponsor for such necessary expenses.
(B) The total amount of unreimbursed expenditures made by the
Commission for travel for any fiscal year, together with the total
amount of reimbursements which the Commission accepts under
subparagraph (A) for such fiscal year, shall not exceed the level
of travel expenses appropriated to the Commission for such fiscal
year.
(C) The Commission shall submit to the appropriate committees of
the Congress, and publish in the Federal Register, quarterly
reports specifying reimbursements which the Commission has accepted
under this paragraph.
(D) The provisions of this paragraph shall cease to have any
force or effect at the end of fiscal year 1994.
(E) Funds which are received by the Commission as reimbursements
under the provisions of this paragraph after the close of a fiscal
year shall remain available for obligation.
(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in furtherance
of its functions the Commission is authorized to accept, hold,
administer, and use unconditional gifts, donations, and bequests of
real, personal, and other property (including voluntary and
uncompensated services, as authorized by section 3109 of title 5).
(B) The Commission, for purposes of providing radio club and
military-recreational call signs, may utilize the voluntary,
uncompensated, and unreimbursed services of amateur radio
organizations authorized by the Commission that have tax-exempt
status under section 501(c)(3) of title 26.
(C) For the purpose of Federal law on income taxes, estate taxes,
and gift taxes, property or services accepted under the authority
of subparagraph (A) shall be deemed to be a gift, bequest, or
devise to the United States.
(D) The Commission shall promulgate regulations to carry out the
provisions of this paragraph. Such regulations shall include
provisions to preclude the acceptance of any gift, bequest, or
donation that would create a conflict of interest or the appearance
of a conflict of interest.
(h) Quorum; seal
Three members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum
thereof. The Commission shall have an official seal which shall be
judicially noticed.
(i) Duties and powers
The Commission may perform any and all acts, make such rules and
regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this
chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.
(j) Conduct of proceedings; hearings
The Commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner as will
best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of
justice. No commissioner shall participate in any hearing or
proceeding in which he has a pecuniary interest. Any party may
appear before the Commission and be heard in person or by
attorney. Every vote and official act of the Commission shall be
entered of record, and its proceedings shall be public upon the
request of any party interested. The Commission is authorized to
withhold publication of records or proceedings containing secret
information affecting the national defense.
(k) Annual reports to Congress
The Commission shall make an annual report to Congress, copies of
which shall be distributed as are other reports transmitted to
Congress. Such reports shall contain -
(1) such information and data collected by the Commission as
may be considered of value in the determination of questions
connected with the regulation of interstate and foreign wire and
radio communication and radio transmission of energy;
(2) such information and data concerning the functioning of the
Commission as will be of value to Congress in appraising the
amount and character of the work and accomplishments of the
Commission and the adequacy of its staff and equipment;
(3) an itemized statement of all funds expended during the
preceding year by the Commission, of the sources of such funds,
and of the authority in this chapter or elsewhere under which
such expenditures were made; and
(4) specific recommendations to Congress as to additional
legislation which the Commission deems necessary or desirable,
including all legislative proposals submitted for approval to the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(l) Record of reports
All reports of investigations made by the Commission shall be
entered of record, and a copy thereof shall be furnished to the
party who may have complained, and to any common carrier or
licensee that may have been complained of.
(m) Publication of reports; admissibility as evidence
The Commission shall provide for the publication of its reports
and decisions in such form and manner as may be best adapted for
public information and use, and such authorized publications shall
be competent evidence of the reports and decisions of the
Commission therein contained in all courts of the United States and
of the several States without any further proof or authentication
thereof.
(n) Compensation of appointees
Rates of compensation of persons appointed under this section
shall be subject to the reduction applicable to officers and
employees of the Federal Government generally.
(o) Use of communications in safety of life and property
For the purpose of obtaining maximum effectiveness from the use
of radio and wire communications in connection with safety of life
and property, the Commission shall investigate and study all phases
of the problem and the best methods of obtaining the cooperation
and coordination of these systems.
Source
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title I, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066; Jan. 22,
1936, ch. 25, 49 Stat. 1098; May 20, 1937, ch. 229, Sec. 3, 4, 50
Stat. 190; Mar. 23, 1941, ch. 24, 55 Stat. 46; July 16, 1952, ch.
879, Sec. 3, 66 Stat. 711; Aug. 13, 1954, ch. 735, Sec. 2, 68 Stat.
729; Pub. L. 86-533, Sec. 1(24), June 29, 1960, 74 Stat. 249; Pub.
L. 86-619, Sec. 2, July 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 407; Pub. L. 86-752,
Sec. 2, Sept. 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 889; Pub. L. 97-35, title XII,
Sec. 1251(b), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 738; Pub. L. 97-253, title V,
Sec. 501(b)(1)-(3), Sept. 8, 1982, 96 Stat. 805, 806; Pub. L.
97-259, title I, Sec. 102-104, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1087-1089;
Pub. L. 98-214, Sec. 10, 11, Dec. 8, 1983, 97 Stat. 1471; Pub. L.
99-272, title V, Sec. 5002(b), Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 118; Pub. L.
99-334, Sec. 1(a), June 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 513; Pub. L. 100-594,
Sec. 3, Nov. 3, 1988, 102 Stat. 3021; Pub. L. 101-396, Sec. 3, 4,
Sept. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 848, 849; Pub. L. 102-538, title II, Sec.
201, 208, Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3542, 3543; Pub. L. 103-414,
title III, Sec. 303(a)(1), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4294; Pub. L.
104-66, title II, Sec. 2051(b), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 729; Pub.
L. 104-104, title IV, Sec. 403(a), (b), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat.
130.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFERENCES IN TEXT
Level III and level IV of the Executive Schedule, referred to in
subsec. (d), are set out in sections 5314 and 5315, respectively,
of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
The civil-service laws, referred to in subsec. (f)(1), (2), are
set forth in Title 5. See particularly, section 3301 et seq. of
Title 5.
Part II of subchapter III of this chapter, referred to in subsec.
(f)(3), is classified to section 351 et seq. of this title.
Provisions of part III of title 5, referred to in subsec.
(f)(4)(E), are classified to section 2101 et seq. of Title 5,
Government Organization and Employees.
Federal law on income taxes, estate taxes, and gift taxes,
referred to in subsec. (g)(3)(C), is classified generally to Title
26, Internal Revenue Code.
CODIFICATION
In subsec. (f)(1), (2) ''chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter
53 of title 5'' substituted for ''the Classification of 1949'' on
authority of Pub. L. 89-554, Sec. 7(b), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat.
631, the first section of which enacted Title 5, Government
Organization and Employees.
In subsec. (f)(4)(E), ''section 1342 of title 31'' substituted
for ''section 3679(b) of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 665(b))''
on authority of Pub. L. 97-258, Sec. 4(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat.
1067, the first section of which enacted Title 31, Money and
Finance.
AMENDMENTS
1996 - Subsec. (f)(3). Pub. L. 104-104, Sec. 403(b), inserted
before period at end '': and Provided further, That, in the
alternative, an entity designated by the Commission may make the
inspections referred to in this paragraph''.
Subsec. (f)(4)(A). Pub. L. 104-104, Sec. 403(a)(1), in first
sentence, inserted ''or administering'' after ''for purposes of
preparing'', ''of'' after ''than the class'', and ''or
administered'' after ''being prepared''.
Subsec. (f)(4)(B). Pub. L. 104-104, Sec. 403(a)(2), (5),
redesignated subpar. (C) as (B) and struck out former subpar. (B)
which read as follows: ''The Commission, for purposes of
administering any examination for an amateur station operator
license, may accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated
services of any individual who holds an amateur station operator
license of a higher class than the class license for which the
examination is being conducted. In the case of examinations for
the highest class of amateur station operator license, the
Commission may accept and employ such services of any individual
who holds such class of license. Any person who owns a significant
interest in, or is an employee of, any company or other entity
which is engaged in the manufacture or distribution of equipment
used in connection with amateur radio transmissions, or in the
preparation or distribution of any publication used in preparation
for obtaining amateur station operator licenses, shall not be
eligible to render any service under this subparagraph.''
Subsec. (f)(4)(C) to (G). Pub. L. 104-104, Sec. 403(a)(5),
redesignated subpars. (D) to (H) as (C) to (G), respectively.
Former subpar. (C) redesignated (B).
Subsec. (f)(4)(H). Pub. L. 104-104, Sec. 403(a)(5), redesignated
subpar. (I) as (H). Former subpar. (H) redesignated (G).
Pub. L. 104-104, Sec. 403(a)(3), substituted ''subparagraphs (A)
and (B)'' for ''subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C)''.
Subsec. (f)(4)(I). Pub. L. 104-104, Sec. 403(a)(5), redesignated
subpar. (J) as (I). Former subpar. (I) redesignated (H).
Subsec. (f)(4)(J). Pub. L. 104-104, Sec. 403(a)(4), (5),
redesignated subpar. (J) as (I) and substituted ''subparagraph (A)
of this paragraph'' for ''subparagraph (A) or (B) of this
paragraph'' and struck out last sentence which read as follows:
''The total amount of allowable cost reimbursement per examinee
shall not exceed $4, adjusted annually every January 1 for changes
in the Department of Labor Consumer Price Index.''
1995 - Subsec. (f)(4)(J). Pub. L. 104-66 struck out at end ''Such
individuals and organizations shall maintain records of
out-of-pocket expenditures and shall certify annually to the
Commission that all costs for which reimbursement was obtained were
necessarily and prudently incurred.''
1994 - Subsec. (f)(3). Pub. L. 103-414 substituted ''overtime
extends beyond'' for ''overtime exceeds beyond''.
1992 - Subsec. (g)(2)(D). Pub. L. 102-538, Sec. 201, substituted
''1994'' for ''1992''.
Subsec. (g)(3). Pub. L. 102-538, Sec. 208, added par. (3).
1990 - Subsec. (f)(5). Pub. L. 101-396, Sec. 3, added par. (5).
Subsec. (g)(2)(D). Pub. L. 101-396, Sec. 4, substituted ''1992''
for ''1989''.
1988 - Subsec. (g)(2)(D). Pub. L. 100-594 substituted ''1989''
for ''1987''.
1986 - Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99-334 substituted ''five years'' for
''seven years''.
Subsec. (g)(2)(D). Pub. L. 99-272, Sec. 5002(b)(1), substituted
''1987'' for ''1985''.
Subsec. (g)(2)(E). Pub. L. 99-272, Sec. 5002(b)(2), added subpar.
(E).
1983 - Subsec. (f)(4)(E) to (I). Pub. L. 98-214, Sec. 10, added
subpar. (E) and redesignated existing subpars. (E) to (H) as (F) to
(I), respectively.
Subsec. (f)(4)(J). Pub. L. 98-214, Sec. 11, added subpar. (J).
1982 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97-253, Sec. 501(b)(1), substituted
''five'' for ''seven''.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 97-259, Sec. 102, amended subsec. (b)
generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows: ''Each
member of the Commission shall be a citizen of the United States.
No member of the Commission or person in its employ shall be
financially interested in the manufacture or sale of radio
apparatus or of apparatus for wire or radio communication; in
communication by wire or radio or in radio transmission of energy;
in any company furnishing services or such apparatus to any company
engaged in communication by wire or radio or to any company
manufacturing or selling apparatus used for communication by wire
or radio; or in any company owning stocks, bonds, or other
securities of any such company; nor be in the employ of or hold any
official relation to any person subject to any of the provisions of
this chapter, nor own stocks, bonds, or other securities of any
corporation subject to any of the provisions of this chapter. Such
commissioners shall not engage in any other business, vocation,
profession, or employment. Any such commissioner serving as such
after one year from July 16, 1952, shall not for a period of one
year following the termination of his services as a commissioner
represent any person before the Commission in a professional
capacity, except that this restriction shall not apply to any
commissioner who has served the full term for which he was
appointed. Not more than four members of the Commission shall be
members of the same political party.''
Pub. L. 97-253, Sec. 501(b)(2), amended last sentence of subsec.
(b), prior to the general amendment by Pub. L. 97-259, by
substituting language identical to that contained in par. (5), as
added by Pub. L. 97-259.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 97-259, Sec. 103(a), struck out ''The''
before ''commissioners'' at beginning of subsection, immediately
thereafter struck out ''first appointed under this chapter shall
continue in office for the terms of one, two, three, four, five,
six, and seven years, respectively, from the date of the taking
effect of this chapter, the term of each to be designated by the
President, but their successors'', and substituted ''been confirmed
and taken the oath of office'' for ''qualified''.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 97-259, Sec. 103(b), amended subsec. (d)
generally, relating to the annual salary rate for the Chairman and
Commissioners.
Subsec. (f)(2). Pub. L. 97-259, Sec. 103(c), substituted ''three
professional assistants'' for ''a legal assistant, an engineering
assistant,''.
Subsec. (f)(4). Pub. L. 97-259, Sec. 104, added par. (4).
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 97-259, Sec. 103(d), designated existing
provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).
Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 97-253, Sec. 501(b)(3), substituted
''Three'' for ''Four''.
Subsec. (k)(2). Pub. L. 97-259, Sec. 103(e), struck out proviso
after ''its staff and equipment'', relating to the content of first
and second annual reports after the enactment of the Communications
Act Amendments of 1952.
Subsec. (k)(3). Pub. L. 97-259, Sec. 103(f), redesignated par.
(4) as (3).
Subsec. (k)(4), (5). Pub. L. 97-259, Sec. 103(f), (g),
redesignated par. (5) as (4) and substituted ''Office of Management
and Budget'' for ''Bureau of the Budget''. Former par. (4)
redesignated (3).
1981 - Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 97-35 substituted requirement
respecting authorizations under section 156 of this title, for
provisions respecting appropriations from time to time.
1960 - Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 86-752 struck out provision that
permitted commissioners to accept ''reasonable honorarium or
compensation'' for ''the presentation or delivery of publications
or papers''.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 86-619 provided for continuation in office
of the commissioners upon termination of their term until their
successors are appointed and have qualified, not beyond expiration
of next session of Congress subsequent to the expiration of said
fixed term of office.
Subsec. (k)(3). Pub. L. 86-533 repealed par. (3) which required
the report to contain information with respect to all persons taken
into the employment of the Commission during the preceding year,
together with the names of those persons who left the employ of the
Commission during the year.
1954 - Subsec. (f)(3). Act Aug. 13, 1954, substituted
''engineers'' for ''inspectors'' and ''Field Engineering and
Monitoring Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission'' for
''Field Division of the Engineering Department of the Federal
Communications Commission'' and extended provisions to include
inspections required pursuant to the Great Lakes Agreement.
1952 - Subsec. (b). Act July 16, 1952, Sec. 3(a), prohibited
commissioners from engaging in any other work except that they may
present or deliver papers for an honorarium, and prohibited any
commissioner from appearing before the Commission in a professional
capacity for 1 year after termination of his services except that
this prohibition would not apply where commissioner has completed
his full term.
Subsec. (f). Act July 16, 1952, Sec. 3(b), authorized Commission
to appoint employees, allowed each commissioner to appoint a legal
assistant, and a secretary, and allowed the Chairman to appoint an
administrative assistant.
Subsec. (g). Act July 16, 1952, Sec. 3(c), authorized Commission
to acquire land for monitoring stations and related facilities.
Subsec. (k). Act July 16, 1952, Sec. 3(d), required Commission to
make more detailed reports to Congress.
1941 - Subsec. (f). Act Mar. 23, 1941, designated existing
provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).
1937 - Subsec. (k). Act May 20, 1937, inserted provisions that
the Commission report to Congress annually at the beginning session
of the Congress whether new wire or radio communication legislation
is necessary and make specific recommendations thereof to Congress.
Subsec. (o). Act May 20, 1937, added subsec. (o).
1936 - Subsec. (f). Act Jan. 22, 1936, inserted references to a
chief accountant and three assistants.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1986 AMENDMENT
Section 1(b) of Pub. L. 99-334 provided that: ''The amendment
made by subsection (a) of this section (amending this section)
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act (June 6,
1986, except that -
''(1) upon the expiration of the term of office prescribed by
law to occur on June 30, 1986, any person appointed as a member
of the Federal Communications Commission to fill such office for
the term following such date shall be eligible to serve until
June 30, 1990, and any person appointed as a member of the
Federal Communications Commission to the term of office
prescribed by law to expire on June 30, 1987, shall be eligible
to serve until June 30, 1989; and
''(2) notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this
section (amending this section), persons appointed as members of
the Federal Communications Commission to terms of office
prescribed by law to expire on June 30, 1988, June 30, 1991, and
June 30, 1992, shall be eligible to serve until the expiration of
the term of office on June 30, 1988, June 30, 1991, and June 30,
1992, whichever is applicable.''
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1982 AMENDMENT
Section 501(b)(4) of Pub. L. 97-253 provided that: ''The
amendments made in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection
(amending this section) shall take effect on July 1, 1983.''
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1954 AMENDMENT
Amendment by act Aug. 13, 1954, effective Nov. 13, 1954, see
section 6 of act Aug. 13, 1954, set out as an Effective Date note
under section 507 of this title.
TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS
All offices of collector of customs, referred to in subsec.
(f)(3), in Bureau of Customs of Department of the Treasury to which
appointments were required to be made by President with advice and
consent of Senate ordered abolished with such offices to be
terminated not later than Dec. 31, 1966, by Reorg. Plan No. 1 of
1965, eff. May 25, 1965, 30 F.R. 7035, 79 Stat. 1317, set out in
the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. All
functions of offices eliminated were already vested in Secretary of
the Treasury by Reorg. Plan No. 26 of 1950, eff. July 31, 1950, 15
F.R. 4935, 64 Stat. 1280, set out in the Appendix to Title 5.
OLDER AMERICANS PROGRAM
Section 6 of Pub. L. 100-594, as amended by Pub. L. 101-396, Sec.
5, Sept. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 849; Pub. L. 102-538, title II, Sec.
212, Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3545, provided that:
''(a) During fiscal years 1992 and 1993, the Federal
Communications Commission is authorized to make grants to, or enter
into cooperative agreements with, private nonprofit organizations
designated by the Secretary of Labor under title V of the Older
Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) to utilize the
talents of older Americans in programs authorized by other
provisions of law administered by the Commission (and consistent
with such provisions of law) in providing technical and
administrative assistance for projects related to the
implementation, promotion, or enforcement of the regulations of the
Commission.
''(b) Prior to awarding any grant or entering into any agreement
under subsection (a), the Office of the Managing Director of the
Commission shall certify to the Commission that such grant or
agreement will not -
''(1) result in the displacement of individuals currently
employed by the Commission;
''(2) result in the employment of any individual when any other
individual is on layoff status from the same or a substantially
equivalent job within the jurisdiction of the Commission; or
''(3) affect existing contracts for services.
''(c) Participants in any program under a grant or cooperative
agreement pursuant to this section shall -
''(1) execute a signed statement with the Commission in which
such participants certify that they will adhere to the standards
of conduct prescribed for regular employees of the Commission, as
set forth in part 19 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations;
and
''(2) execute a confidential statement of employment and
financial interest (Federal Communications Commission Form A-54)
prior to commencement of work under the program.
Failure to comply with the terms of the signed statement described
in paragraph (1) shall result in termination of the individual
under the grant or agreement.
''(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit
employment of any such participant in any decisionmaking or
policymaking position.
''(e) Grants or agreements under this section shall be subject to
prior appropriation Acts.''
EXPIRATION OF COMMISSIONERS' TERMS
Pub. L. 97-253, title V, Sec. 501(a), Sept. 8, 1982, 96 Stat.
805, provided that: ''Upon expiration of the term of office as a
member of the Federal Communications Commission, which is
prescribed by law to occur on June 30, 1982, any member appointed
to fill such office after such date shall be appointed for a term
which ends on June 30, 1983, and such office shall be abolished on
July 1, 1983. Upon expiration of the term of office as a member of
such Commission, which -
''(1) is prescribed by law;
''(2) is in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act
(Sept. 8, 1982); and
''(3) is to occur on June 30, 1983;
no person shall be appointed to fill such office after such date,
and such office shall be abolished on July 1, 1983.''
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Effect of Rule 44 on this section, see note by Advisory Committee
under rule 44, Title 28, Appendix, Judiciary and Judicial
Procedure.
Proof of official records, see rule 44.
SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
This section is referred to in sections 309, 607 of this title;
title 5 section 5549.
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by NOMDEPLUME on March 23, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First off I would like to say that I am not a HAM. I have been studying for the exam and hope to pass the General Class in the near future.
I figure that I have no problems with people like Bill, because I won't have the privledges to work that part of the band.
I do have one comment.
Bill:
Are you so bored with life that you have to ruin a hobby for everyone? If that is the case I would recoment suicide. Put yourself out of your misery.
I personally think you have been smelling your own farts way too long and basically don't realize that you DO stink!
|
| |
|
RE: Disgusting Operating Practices
|
|
|
by G1RHV on May 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
" Well,as a person studying to get into this hobby,I must say this sounds like something I can get on 11 meters. Please tell me all the hard work I am doing is worth it."
Hi Dave,
Ignore the elitist comments panning anyone who ever used 11 metres. You are a radio enthusiast first and foremost.
Yes there are things about the bands we might not like but then its only really a reflection of life.
Please keep up the enthusiasm and press on with your studies. 11m gives some scope for antenna experimentation and plenty of practice with QRP.
The amateur bands offer a great deal more. The good times will more than make up for any sour moments.
73's
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
FCC Continues Enforcement Drive
Those Nasty DX Hunters...
Moving Abroad...
A Nice Touch
Tips On Working 60 Meters
Other Operating Articles
Safety First
My First Date with Olivia
D-STAR/Analog Interference Experience
Using Twitter During Mobile Operation
First HF Contact and Other Stuff
|
